PDA

View Full Version : Possible Spitfire speed bug



ImpStarDuece
01-28-2006, 03:42 AM
Just been doing some testing and found what I think is strange error in the level speeds of between the clipped and non clipped versions of the Spitfire IX.

A standard Spitfire IXc/e with full sapn wings makes about 538-539 kph at sea-level (100% fuel, auto everything). Which is about perfect.

However, the clipped winged versions only make about 532 kph at sea level, or some 6-7 kph SLOWER than the full span versions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Shouldn't the clipped winged versions be about 5-8 mph/ 8-13 kph FASTER than the full span winged versions at sea-level. Wasn't that one of the benefits of clipping the wings, better speed and acceleration?

I'd appreciate some support testing by the community before I go and post this in ORR and to PF@1c.ru

ImpStarDuece
01-28-2006, 03:42 AM
Just been doing some testing and found what I think is strange error in the level speeds of between the clipped and non clipped versions of the Spitfire IX.

A standard Spitfire IXc/e with full sapn wings makes about 538-539 kph at sea-level (100% fuel, auto everything). Which is about perfect.

However, the clipped winged versions only make about 532 kph at sea level, or some 6-7 kph SLOWER than the full span versions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Shouldn't the clipped winged versions be about 5-8 mph/ 8-13 kph FASTER than the full span winged versions at sea-level. Wasn't that one of the benefits of clipping the wings, better speed and acceleration?

I'd appreciate some support testing by the community before I go and post this in ORR and to PF@1c.ru

HellToupee
01-28-2006, 05:14 AM
yea ive noticed in the fullspan spit i fly ive often overtaken human flown clipped wings of same type while persuing a bandit.

robban75
01-28-2006, 05:18 AM
I get pretty much the same numbers. CW IX is slower. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Is it the same with the VIII? The CW WIII gains in roll rate but has the same stall speed as the standard wing VIII.

JtD
01-28-2006, 05:37 AM
I got about a 5 kph difference, the CW is slower. IXe, IXeLFCW tested.

p1ngu666
01-28-2006, 06:02 AM
yeah the cw should be faster, the full wing was faster up high. guessing angle of attack and the way air flows favours the full wing at higher alts

JtD
01-28-2006, 07:58 AM
I just compared the Vb and the Vb CW and the CW certainly isn't faster. Dunno if it's slower, the difference of about 2 kph could very well be down to testing error.

Xiolablu3
01-28-2006, 10:19 AM
I am one of the few flyers who prefer the smaller turning circle of the full wing spits. (great for defensive manouvres) AT least the full wingers SHOULD have a smaller turning circle,I have never tested it, just assumed they would have.

I am sure the clipped winged spits should be faster, as they have less drag than the full wings.

Also the roll rate of the clipped spits is too slow. SHouldnt it be at least as fast as a FW190A?

zugfuhrer
01-28-2006, 10:43 AM
I have read that the eliptic wing reduced the helix from the wingtips, which reduced drag. The winglipped spit was an adaptation to give the spit a faster roll.

Brain32
01-28-2006, 10:46 AM
I know only that clippy IXe can endure much higher dive speeds...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Also the roll rate of the clipped spits is too slow. SHouldnt it be at least as fast as a FW190A? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it is if you use rudder in roll(but not sure, just subjective opinion)...

VW-IceFire
01-28-2006, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
I have read that the eliptic wing reduced the helix from the wingtips, which reduced drag. The winglipped spit was an adaptation to give the spit a faster roll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Possibly....but the clipped wing variants were still rated as being faster at low altitudes. The clipping was to enhance roll rate and improve low altitude speed performance so that they could catch FW190s. The clipped variants should have the disadvantage of a slightly worse turning circle, reduced climbing performance, and reduced altitude performance.

But these are all very slight.

Grey_Mouser67
01-28-2006, 12:01 PM
Yes, I had found the same thing...I posted once or twice about it and I think it is incorrect, however I don't fly the CW spit much and the Spit is pretty much slower than every aircraft of its era anyways, so it doesn't really bother me...it could stand to be fixed though...anything to bring a plane closer to its real life numbers.

I was also reading some testing done back in the era and one page noted that the radiator was closed during the test...this seems odd, because I didn't think you could close the radiator on a Spit in game or in real life...could someone with Spit knowledge clear this up?

faustnik
01-28-2006, 12:04 PM
Nice catch ImpStar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I never liked those clipped versions anyway. It ruins the Spit's beautiful lines.

JtD
01-28-2006, 01:27 PM
Clipped wings are about the only feature that make the appearance of the Spit bearable.

pourshot
01-28-2006, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:

I was also reading some testing done back in the era and one page noted that the radiator was closed during the test...this seems odd, because I didn't think you could close the radiator on a Spit in game or in real life...could someone with Spit knowledge clear this up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very small number of spit IX were fitted with a manual over ride for the radiator, but I think these are mostly for testing.

robban75
01-28-2006, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The clipped variants should have the disadvantage of a slightly worse turning circle, reduced climbing performance, and reduced altitude performance.

But these are all very slight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much wing area was actually removed? 10-15%? That should have a rather noticable effect on turning performance, shouldn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

luftluuver
01-28-2006, 03:45 PM
Was the wrong data plugged into the 2 Spits?

CW got data for FS and vice versa.

ImpStarDuece
01-28-2006, 06:38 PM
No, speeds for the full span Spitfire IX appear to be correct to within a few mph/kph. 334 mph/538 kph on the deck is about 2 mph/3 kph too slow, but that could be my bad piloting and/or incorrect trimming.

I get some really screwy results with the various Spitfires between the clipped and non-clipped versions.

Vb 1941: 465 kph
Vb 1934 Clipped: 465 kph

No speed difference between clipped and full span

L.F. Vb 1942: 525 kph
L.F. Vb 1942 Clipped: 519 kph

Full span 6 kph faster

IXc: 539 kph
L.F. IXc Clipped: 533 kph

Full span 6 kph faster

L.F. IXe: 538 kph
L.F. IXe Clipped: 533 kph

Full span 5 kph faster

H.F. IXe: 533 kph

About 3 kph too fast

VIII: 540 kph
VIII clipped: 532 kph

Speed is about perfect, but clipped is still 8 kph slower than full span

Ratsack
01-28-2006, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I know only that clippy IXe can endure much higher dive speeds...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Also the roll rate of the clipped spits is too slow. SHouldnt it be at least as fast as a FW190A? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it is if you use rudder in roll(but not sure, just subjective opinion)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it shouldn't. Not even close. While the roll of the clipped wing Spit was superior to the conventional Spit's, and most other Allied fighters, it was not as good as the FW190A.

This is one of those myths that does the rounds.

Ratsack

tigertalon
01-28-2006, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Also the roll rate of the clipped spits is too slow. SHouldnt it be at least as fast as a FW190A? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, up to roughly 220mph spits should roll even faster than antons.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/roll_rates.gif

LuftWulf190
01-28-2006, 07:14 PM
"Is it the same with the VIII? The CW WIII gains in roll rate but has the same stall speed as the standard wing VIII." -Robban75


shouldn't the CW Spits have a slightly higher, but not alot higher, stall speed then the full winged Spits? I would think so because the pilot loses the "extra" lift the full winged Spit would have.

Xiolablu3
01-28-2006, 07:46 PM
Impstar, good find, you should make a thread about this in ORR.

One thing that sticks out from that roll rate test data is the slow rate of roll of the Typhoon, nearly as slow as a zero.

Hope the Tempests is better?

WHat you have to remember about the Spitfire is that the Mk9 was introduced in mid 1942, and at this time it wasnt slower than all the other aircraft of the era, it pretty much kept up with all the faster planes apart from the MkV vs the 190A, which was when the Spit was at its worst.

Only in this game is it at a disadvantage because its a 1942 design pitted against much later LW types. (and it still does well thx to its manouvrability)

ImpStarDuece
01-28-2006, 08:33 PM
Tempest was fitted with spring tab alierons early in production, so it should be significantly better than the Typhoon.

Even the ADFU trials on a Tempest without spring tab alierons noted that the rate of roll copeared with the Typhoon was better at all speeds.

The ADFU trials showed a peak rate of roll at about 97 deg/sec at 300 mph indicated.

JtD
01-29-2006, 12:17 AM
Is there any test data or else that proves a CW should be faster on the deck than a full span wing?

To me it's common sense, but this may not be enough in Moscow.

------

Tested the IXe again and get speeds a bit quicker than yours, 542/537, but the CW is still slower.

Xiolablu3
01-29-2006, 01:42 AM
Thanks TigerTalon - That historical test data shows the clipped Spitfire roll rate faster than the FW190A up to 220mph (350kph) then the 190 takes over, but the Spit is still very close even after that.


Looking for quotes on the Clipped versions low level speed, many quotes such as this :- 'Pending the arrival of the Spitfire Mk IX, some Mk Vs had their wing tips removed, decreasing the span by four feet four inches. The 'clipped-wing' Spitfire was marginally faster than the standard Mk V and had a considerably better rate of roll. A Merlin with a modified supercharger was also fitted, which gave a speed at low level equivalent to that of the Fw-190. Such Spitfires were known as 'clipped and cropped'.


All the pages I have looked at quote 'with clipped wings for better low level performance' like the quote above. All state that the clipped version was a little faster.

I guess we just need to find out exactly how much...

Xiolablu3
01-29-2006, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LuftWulf190:
"Is it the same with the VIII? The CW WIII gains in roll rate but has the same stall speed as the standard wing VIII." -Robban75


shouldn't the CW Spits have a slightly higher, but not alot higher, stall speed then the full winged Spits? I would think so because the pilot loses the "extra" lift the full winged Spit would have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a good point mate.

Also, taking your point further, I would also have thought the clipped Spits should have a lower climb rate thanks to the smaller wing area? But this is just me guessing, I have no data to back this up.

You would htink less area = less lift.

ImpStarDuece
01-29-2006, 02:03 AM
Dr Alfred Price, "Spitfire Mk V Aces 1941-1945"

pp. 17

"Compared with the MK V with standard span wings, the clipped-wing fighter dived faster, had better acceleration and a better rate of roll. Below 10,000 feet, its maximum speed was also roughly 5 mph greater. Low down the only disadvantage was that they gave a slight increase in the fighter's minimum turn radius"

JtD
01-29-2006, 02:46 AM
Thank you both. Too bad Price does not give details about his sources.

Maybe it is because it is a general result from various Spits all over the RAF, as there were differences between indiviual ac. A single test between a CW and not CW Spit couldn't determine the influence of the wingtips - could easily be a less poerful engine, higher drag, worse piloting or whatever...

So I think we have to rely on general statements like the ones above.

JtD
01-29-2006, 02:55 AM
Effects of clipped wing on climbrate are a bit more complex than what you think, Xiola.

Eventually all is down to drag and weight. The clipped wings at high speed and low altitude have less drag than full wing tips. However, as the speed or altitude increases, you will need a higher AoA for a better lift coefficient which will lead to increased drag. The clipped wing will suffer more, one point would be the higher wingloading, but the second and more important is the turbulence/vortex created by the wintips. Clipped wing are far worse in this respect than full span wing with rounded wing tips. This is negliable as long as you go straight and fast, but low and slow it counts.
You also have to consider that the clipped wing was actually a tad lighter than the full tip.
All in all, it very much depends on the rest of the aircraft whether or not a clipped wing would decrease climbrate.

Kurfurst__
01-29-2006, 05:17 AM
Performance tests were done with AA 937, a MkVb, with both clipped and normal wings. Results :

Max rate of climb (N/CW) : 2840 / 2670 fpm
Time to
10k : 3,7/3,9
20k : 7,4/7,9
30k : 13,6/15min

Serv. C: 38000 / 36200

Max speed
17k : 342 / 343
19,8: 353 / 353 (FTH)
25 : 346 / 342mph

JtD
01-29-2006, 05:22 AM
Thx Kurfürst.

Is this report available somewhere on the internet?

Kurfurst__
01-29-2006, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
WHat you have to remember about the Spitfire is that the Mk9 was introduced in mid 1942, and at this time it wasnt slower than all the other aircraft of the era, it pretty much kept up with all the faster planes apart from the MkV vs the 190A, which was when the Spit was at its worst.

Only in this game is it at a disadvantage because its a 1942 design pitted against much later LW types. (and it still does well thx to its manouvrability) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What you have to remember about the MkIX that it was around in meager numbers compared to the MkV until mid-1943, and did not really replace it as a frontline fighter until the 2nd half of 1943/early 1944. In 1944 the MkIX was the mainstay and by far the most numerous (the XIV being exceedingly rare) - historically facing the LW fighters which it does in the game, the "only" differnce here is that any dedicated sim 109/190 driver has YEARS of experience on the type as opposed to the 1944's 110 hour LW rookie. . They always fly it to its max.

I think Pierre Clostermann also mentioned the IXs had difficulties with later war LW props, becuse of the speed disparity.

Kurfurst__
01-29-2006, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Thx Kurfürst.

Is this report available somewhere on the internet? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't think so, it's not published anywhere to my knowladge. It's DSIR 23/12562.

Here's the full one :



http://img105.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_730d6_dsir_23_12562_1.jpg (http://img105.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=730d6_dsir_23_12562_1.jpg)http://img139.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_6466f_dsir_23_12562_2.jpg (http://img139.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=6466f_dsir_23_12562_2.jpg)http://img128.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_e5cc9_dsir_23_12562_3.jpg (http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=e5cc9_dsir_23_12562_3.jpg)http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_1164f_dsir_23_12562_4.jpg (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=1164f_dsir_23_12562_4.jpg)
http://img40.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_e5cbe_dsir_23_12562_5.jpg (http://img40.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=e5cbe_dsir_23_12562_5.jpg)


Have a nice day everyone! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stathem
01-29-2006, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
WHat you have to remember about the Spitfire is that the Mk9 was introduced in mid 1942, and at this time it wasnt slower than all the other aircraft of the era, it pretty much kept up with all the faster planes apart from the MkV vs the 190A, which was when the Spit was at its worst.

Only in this game is it at a disadvantage because its a 1942 design pitted against much later LW types. (and it still does well thx to its manouvrability) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What you have to remember about the MkIX that it was around in meager numbers compared to the MkV until mid-1943, and did not really replace it as a frontline fighter until the 2nd half of 1943/early 1944. In 1944 the MkIX was the mainstay and by far the most numerous (the XIV being exceedingly rare) - historically facing the LW fighters which it does in the game, the "only" differnce here is that any dedicated sim 109/190 driver has YEARS of experience on the type as opposed to the 1944's 110 hour LW rookie. . They always fly it to its max.

I think Pierre Clostermann also mentioned the IXs had difficulties with later war LW props, becuse of the speed disparity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How 'bout we stay on topic?

Kurfurst, in England we have a saying,

"You are what you drink"

I think I found just the thing for you.

http://www.musselinn.co.nz/images/label%20thumbs/bitterass.JPG

Brain32
01-29-2006, 06:02 AM
What, are you going to slam the guy by default now? He only helped this thread with nice documentation and added his comment...
EDIT:If you are curious why am I advocating in his behalf, well I'm a law student and just can't help myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JtD
01-29-2006, 06:03 AM
Thanks a lot! This is very interesting from some points of view. One would be how little the roll rate changed, another the change of the ASI readouts and for me the most interesting: How much the tester still cared about turning.

In 1943, they suggested not to use the CW, essentially because it reduced the turning ability...with those guys giving recommendations, I wonder why they didn't have the Sopwith Triplane in service.

JtD
01-29-2006, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:

How 'bout we stay on topic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like you did? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

p1ngu666
01-29-2006, 07:05 AM
despite what some people think, turning was still a useful ability to have http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
01-29-2006, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
WHat you have to remember about the Spitfire is that the Mk9 was introduced in mid 1942, and at this time it wasnt slower than all the other aircraft of the era, it pretty much kept up with all the faster planes apart from the MkV vs the 190A, which was when the Spit was at its worst.

Only in this game is it at a disadvantage because its a 1942 design pitted against much later LW types. (and it still does well thx to its manouvrability) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What you have to remember about the MkIX that it was around in meager numbers compared to the MkV until mid-1943, and did not really replace it as a frontline fighter until the 2nd half of 1943/early 1944. In 1944 the MkIX was the mainstay and by far the most numerous (the XIV being exceedingly rare) - historically facing the LW fighters which it does in the game, the "only" differnce here is that any dedicated sim 109/190 driver has YEARS of experience on the type as opposed to the 1944's 110 hour LW rookie. . They always fly it to its max.

I think Pierre Clostermann also mentioned the IXs had difficulties with later war LW props, becuse of the speed disparity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well of course they did, they were slower! 1942 design vs later LW types.

The Spit mk14 was less rare than the 109K4 of which 1000 produced many never even made it to fly/were shot up on the ground/were destroyed on first sortie. 1000 Mk14's and most were in front line service and very few destroyed.

The same could be said for the Dora 9 , the mainstay of the LW was still 109G's and FW190A's yet we see far more 190D's on 1944 maps than 190A's. To even things up the Spit 14 would be great to have. If we could limit the numbers of the Mk14/Dora 109K4/262 this would be even better. How it is done on Ukded is to have the 262 or rare planes at bases far from the front, so that you can fly them , but it takes a long time for them to get there and therefore the map is never swamped.


Anyway sorry for going off topic.

Impstar are you going to post this in ORR or email the relavent parties? It would be a very simple bug to fix I am sure, but one which needs doing.

Turning circle is one of the most important manouvres in air combat, as it allows you to get on an opponents tail. Of course a veteran pilot in a faser plane can always counter this. Speed is more important tho.

mynameisroland
01-30-2006, 03:09 AM
The Spitfire IX was introduced in 1942 in small numbers and with the Merlin 61 engine, not the Merlin 66 versions we have in game (H.F uses Merlin 71). The Spitfire IX with Merlin 61 was fast but it was not as fast as the 66 engined version at low altitudes. It held the edge over the Fw 190 over 25,000ft but not below that height. The introduction of the Merlin 66 lowered the rated altitude of the Spitfire so that it closely mathched the rated altitude of the BMW 801 therefore the speeds were much more closely mathched although the Fw 190 still retained by in large a speed and acceleration advantage over the Spitfire below 25,000ft throughout the war.

Even with the introduction of the Spitfire XIV ( Im partially on Kufursts side here although there were over 1000 built many of those were completed and delivered after VE day but before VJ day so although relevant there were actually more Fw 190D9's and Bf 109K4's on airfields in Europe than Spitfire XIVs) there is still a speed disparity because the Griffon produced most of its performance higher up. The Spitfire XIV was slower than the Dora and K4 at sea level and at lower altitudes.

This is where the Tempest comes in to play, Spitfire rules the roost up high, Tempest down low. Although with that lazy roll rate Ive a sneaky feeling the Dora is going to be the better of the two in a one on one. Dora should have superior sustained climb and also the difference in turn characterisitics is minimal.

On topic again, I think its pretty obvious. Oleg and 1C have mixed up the two graphs for the CW and full winged versions of the Spitfire.

Sort it!

mynameisroland
01-30-2006, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Thank you both. Too bad Price does not give details about his sources.

Maybe it is because it is a general result from various Spits all over the RAF, as there were differences between indiviual ac. A single test between a CW and not CW Spit couldn't determine the influence of the wingtips - could easily be a less poerful engine, higher drag, worse piloting or whatever...

So I think we have to rely on general statements like the ones above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alfred Price's book also has tables and charts that show the 422mph speed at 24,000ft for the Spitfire VII. Like we were discussing a few months ago.

Reading more on the topic there is a clear account in 'Spitfire Flying Legends' of a Squadron Leader having a Spitfire VII while the rest of his Squadron were equipped with Spitfire XVIs. He in the end after a number of sorties had to switch to the same type after the rest of his flight complained that his VII was too fast too keep up with.

p1ngu666
01-30-2006, 04:26 AM
its probably past jan45 that there would be more k4's in service than XIV's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

g14's and a8's where the mainstay in late 44

Xiolablu3
01-30-2006, 04:34 AM
250 mk14's produced after the wars end.

This means about 750 were flying during the war.

You have to specualate that less than 750 109K4's ever made it into the air, so many trains and transports destroyed.

The mk14's were taken straight to the front once built to be used.

In the Boddenplatte LW offensive 1st Jan 1945.

#2 Sq in XIVs got a K-4
#401 Sq in IXs got 4 109s
#403 Sq in XIVs got 3 109s
#414 Sq in IXs got 3 109s

A total of 22 109 Gs and Ks were lost altogther.

I cant find the Fw190 claims, only Spitfire vs 109.

Nevertheless it shows there were quite a few mk14's on the front airfields.

ImpStarDuece
01-30-2006, 04:49 AM
I'm just coalating all the information I have and finsishing a few more tests. All the info will be sent off to PF@1c.ru tommorrow.

Just on the K4/D9 vs XIV availability. AFAIK there were only 8 pure fighter Spitfire XIV squadrons who served in the ETO before VE Day.

No 610 Sqn in January 1944
No 91 Sqn in March 1944
No 322 Sqn in March 1944
No 130 Sqn in August 1944
No 350 Sqn in August 1944
No 402 Sqn in August 1944
No 403 Sqn in August 1944
No 41 Sqn in September 1944

All 8 squadrons were operating from European bases by September 1944. So these squadrons were operational over Europe the same time as D9 deliveries were beginning (August 1944 with III/JG 54) and before K4 deliveries began (October, 1944).

There were also several squadrons who operated the Spitfire FR Mk. XIVE, a dedicated low altitude fighter-reconnisance version of the Mk. XIV. The FR Mk. XIV had E type armament (2 .50 cals, 2 Hispanos), cut down rear fuselage, bubble canopy, clipped wings, an additional 33 imperial gallon (136 L)fuel tank in the rear fuselage and a removable oblique F.24 camera, also in the rear fuselage.

No 2 Sqn in November 1944, who operated the type in parallel with Mustang IIs (Allison engine) until Jan 1945, when they completely switched over to Mk XIVs
No 430 Sqn in November 1944.
No 603 Sqn in January 1945
No 268 Squadron in April 1945, who operated the type in parallel with Mustang IIIs
No 414 Sqn, who began to convert from Mk IXs in April 1945 but didn't finish until shortly after VE Day.


No 11 and 17 Sqns arrived in India in June 1945 with FR Mk. XIVs, but were not declared operational until August.

So ETO usage was 3 squadrons operational before D-Day, 8 by September 1944 and 10 1/2 squadrons by January 1945. Not massive, if you consider that the RAF operated around 56 squadrons Spitfires in Europe at the time, but still quite significant.

luftluuver
01-30-2006, 04:49 AM
The would be a fair number of K-4s but these would be the 1.8 ata boosted ones. The K-4 using 1.98 were *few and far between* and not appearing till the last few weeks of WW2.

On Apr 10 1945, the LW 'on hand' strength for se a/c (109+190) had <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">59.7%</span> being composed of Fw190s and only <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">40.3%</span> being composed of Me109s.

p1ngu666
01-30-2006, 05:11 AM
would it be possible to work out when, or indeed if k4's surpassed XIV in inservice numbers?

given that it would happen in 45 makes it difficult, cos there are few records for 45?

luftluuver
01-30-2006, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
would it be possible to work out when, or indeed if k4's surpassed XIV in inservice numbers?

given that it would happen in 45 makes it difficult, cos there are few records for 45? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A link to 109 production numbers can be found near the bottom of the page, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462&page=3

Bf 109 Neubau.doc

For Bodenplatte, there was only 167 *onhand* out of 854 K-4s that had been produced to date. K-4s made up only 27% of the *onhand* 109s. G-10s of one flavour or another were the most numerous 109s in '45.

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 08:36 AM
I'm a little confused now. I thought the bulk of IXs in service had a Merlin 63 in a Mk. V airframe, with later variants having the pointed rudder with Merlin 63.

I also thought all LF models of IX were Merlin 66 and HF Merlin 70, with Mk. VIII supposed to be Merlin 63 regular wing and Merlin 66 in CW versions? I always confuse what we have modeled in game.

One thing I do know from all that I've read on Spitfires, an LF should be faster at sea level. Historically, what the CWs gained in speed and roll rate, was a good trade-off for the slightly less stability of the CW's shorter wing and slight performance decrease at altitude.

Unknown-Pilot
01-30-2006, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
I'm a little confused now. I thought the bulk of IXs in service had a Merlin 63 in a Mk. V airframe, with later variants having the pointed rudder with Merlin 63.

I also thought all LF models of IX were Merlin 66 and HF Merlin 70, with Mk. VIII supposed to be Merlin 63 regular wing and Merlin 66 in CW versions? I always confuse what we have modeled in game.

One thing I do know from all that I've read on Spitfires, an LF should be faster at sea level. Historically, what the CWs gained in speed and roll rate, was a good trade-off for the slightly less stability of the CW's shorter wing and slight performance decrease at altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfires in general seem to make about as much sense as Yaks. &gt; The 9 was out in '42, but yet we have a '43 5? And when did the 8 come out?

It's like the Yak9 preceeding the Yak3.

Must be some crazy numbering system known only to aero-engineers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-30-2006, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

Spitfires in general seem to make about as much sense as Yaks. &gt; The 9 was out in '42, but yet we have a '43 5? And when did the 8 come out?

It's like the Yak9 preceeding the Yak3.

Must be some crazy numbering system known only to aero-engineers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, the LF.MK.V came in service 1943....

we have in game no Spit IX of the year 1942 , all , except the HF one, are LF.MK.IX with merlin 66 of the year 1943.
the two Mk.VIII in game are so far i know also with MErlin66 performance , so LF.MK.VIII of 1943

but true, we have not the total development line of the Spitfire through WW2 , no doubt !

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 12:21 PM
The Mk. VIII was the "offical" design incorporation of the Merlin engines into the airframe. As opposed to Mk. IXs starting out with a Mk. V airframe (rounded tail). The Mk. IXs were considered a "stop gap" model, but were so good they became the 2nd largest number of Spitfire Marks to be produced. second to the Mk. V types.

The first Mk. VIIIs were operational in 1943 and were basically unpressurized Mk. VIIs (VII was designed for high altitude, featuring extended wing tips, and only about 140 being produced.) It was the first Spit with retractable tailwheel, streamlined tropical filter and pointed rudder (adopted on later Mk. IXs) and the majority of Mk. VIIIs were produced with Merlin 66s. The Mk. VIIIs were also cleared for +25lb boost, as the majority of Mk. VIIIs featured the Merlin 66.

Spitfire Performance (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html)

Unknown-Pilot
01-30-2006, 12:36 PM
Thanks for the info, but I think you guys missed my point.

It would be like the P-47M coming before the D.

Or - the LS1 was reused as the name for the all aluminum block Gen III V8 (from GM) in the C5 Corvette. This was succeeded by a ramped up version call the LS6. Ok, bit of a jump for no apparent reason, but still in numerical order.

Then they come out with the Gen IV and call it the LS2. So what is the hot version? LS7.

But now you have Gen III (LS1), Gen IV (LS2), Gen III (LS6), then Gen IV again (LS7).

lol

I've often wondered if maybe Yakolev was in charge of naming at GM. I mean, doesn't it make perfect sense that 3 would come after 9? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

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

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 12:50 PM
Copy. I was trying to show why they went to Mk. IX before Mk. VIII, as they already had a Mk. VIII design in the works, when they stop gapped the Mk. IX to counter the FW threat.

I'm not sure about Yakolev's naming scheme. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-30-2006, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Thanks for the info, but I think you guys missed my point.

It would be like the P-47M coming before the D.

Or - the LS1 was reused as the name for the all aluminum block Gen III V8 (from GM) in the C5 Corvette. This was succeeded by a ramped up version call the LS6. Ok, bit of a jump for no apparent reason, but still in numerical order.

Then they come out with the Gen IV and call it the LS2. So what is the hot version? LS7.

But now you have Gen III (LS1), Gen IV (LS2), Gen III (LS6), then Gen IV again (LS7).

lol

I've often wondered if maybe Yakolev was in charge of naming at GM. I mean, doesn't it make perfect sense that 3 would come after 9? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

fighters got in general odd numbers.

and Yak developed two families of fighters:
the Yak1 series, that was developed into the Yak3.
and the Yak7 series, that was developed into the Yak9.

so, there is a logic behind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hop2002
01-30-2006, 03:31 PM
The reason for the parallel production/deployment of VIIIs and IXs is because they had different airframes. The IX was basically the Mk V airframe, and was produced at Castle Bromwich. The VIII had a slightly different airframe, which required retooling, and was built only at Supermarine in Southampton.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm a little confused now. I thought the bulk of IXs in service had a Merlin 63 in a Mk. V airframe, with later variants having the pointed rudder with Merlin 63. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the bulk of IXs were LF IXs with Merlin 66. (from memory, and very roughly, about 350 Merlin 61, 900 Merlin 63, 4000 or so Merlin 66, 400 Merlin 70)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also thought all LF models of IX were Merlin 66 and HF Merlin 70 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">with Mk. VIII supposed to be Merlin 63 regular wing and Merlin 66 in CW versions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The clipped/normal wings has nothing to do with F/LF/HF designation. On the VIII/IX at least, LF means low alt Merlin 66, F means Merlin 61 or 63, HF means Merlin 70.

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 03:37 PM
Ah, good to know. So, the VIIIs we have are Merlin 66s and they need +25lb boost as well, lol. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Thanks for clarification of engines...etc. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

What of Mk. Vb LFs?

BfHeFwMe
01-30-2006, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

Spitfires in general seem to make about as much sense as Yaks. &gt; The 9 was out in '42, but yet we have a '43 5? And when did the 8 come out?

It's like the Yak9 preceeding the Yak3.

Must be some crazy numbering system known only to aero-engineers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yak-1 and Yak-9 were different specifications as far as missions. Yak-1 series was designed with the goal of strictly air to air combat, and the Yak-3 was a follow on improved series of a redesigned 1 airframe.

Yak-9 from the start was built with the idea of a strike aircraft. Hense you'll see air to ground munitions and all the combinations of wierd guns up front. The cockpit was moved back and airframe generally was beefed up, why it has slightly less turn ability than any 1 series except for the Yak-3 which it could out manouver.

That also explains why the one series was dropped all together. Yak-9 with dual role was more handy, and still could manouver good enough, and Yak-3 was fast enough to catch a runner. Game has it a bit off giving the -3 its super manouverability. You just can't do that by scaling it down and keeping the same weight. You lose drag and gain speed, but turn and roll performance? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Right,,,,,,