PDA

View Full Version : Spit IX - LF vs HF - IL2 Compare



hughlb2
06-30-2004, 07:54 AM
Now correct me if i'm wrong - the LF mkIX is optimised for flight below 3000m and the HF is optimised for high altitude flight.

OK, so with this in mind I compared the two versions in IL2 Compare. The LF and HF performance (climb rate, true airspeed) is IDENTICAL under 3000m, but the HF excells at high altitude (like it should).

But here's the problem - Shouldn't the LF spit perform better than the HF spit at low altitude? If not, what would be the pupose of an LF version if the HF performs equally at low altitude and better at highhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

(I know the FM's are being fixed in 2.02, but I don't believe Oleg will change the FM between the LF and HF, just the spitIX in general, so this issue will probably still remain after 2.02)

hughlb2
06-30-2004, 07:54 AM
Now correct me if i'm wrong - the LF mkIX is optimised for flight below 3000m and the HF is optimised for high altitude flight.

OK, so with this in mind I compared the two versions in IL2 Compare. The LF and HF performance (climb rate, true airspeed) is IDENTICAL under 3000m, but the HF excells at high altitude (like it should).

But here's the problem - Shouldn't the LF spit perform better than the HF spit at low altitude? If not, what would be the pupose of an LF version if the HF performs equally at low altitude and better at highhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

(I know the FM's are being fixed in 2.02, but I don't believe Oleg will change the FM between the LF and HF, just the spitIX in general, so this issue will probably still remain after 2.02)

horseback
06-30-2004, 08:06 AM
LF MkIX Spits just had their superchargers' final stage set to kick in a bit lower, so that they could maintain optimum performance around 18000 ft, like the FW 190. HF was set so the final stage kicked in a bit later, that's all. Low alt performance (below 4000m/13000ft) should be nearly identical.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

hughlb2
06-30-2004, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
LF MkIX Spits just had their superchargers' final stage set to kick in a bit lower, so that they could maintain optimum performance around 18000 ft, like the FW 190. HF was set so the final stage kicked in a bit later, that's all. Low alt performance (below 4000m/13000ft) should be nearly identical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I think I understand. I'm looking at the IL2 Compare graphs now and there is gap between 5000m-6000m where the LF seems to very slightly outperform the HF.

Just another quick question, if you were a spit pilot and they gave you the choice of the IXe LF or IXe HF which would you choose for overall performance over all altitudes?

[This message was edited by hughlb2 on Wed June 30 2004 at 08:00 AM.]

[This message was edited by hughlb2 on Wed June 30 2004 at 08:01 AM.]

Aero_Shodanjo
06-30-2004, 08:46 AM
Im not an historian or aircraft expert so please correct me if im wrong.

Isnt it that the LF version of the Spitfire is the type with the wing clipped? If it is, then the main difference in performance between LF & HF version at low altitude is mainly in their roll rate. The LF has a better roll, i think.

"Air Power, ...Its mistery is half its power."

hughlb2
06-30-2004, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aero_Shodanjo:
Im not an historian or aircraft expert so please correct me if im wrong.

Isnt it that the LF version of the Spitfire is the type with the wing clipped? If it is, then the main difference in performance between LF & HF version at low altitude is mainly in their roll rate. The LF has a better roll, i think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LF doesn't mean a spit with clipped wings. LF spits have superchargers that are configured differently to HF spits, it has nothing to do with the wings. (although I don't think you will see a clipped wing HF spithttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

Aero_Shodanjo
06-30-2004, 09:07 AM
Sigh,... spitfires...

Be it LF HF, clipped or original wing...
They're downright sexy... Though I still wish sometimes that they have two more cannons in place of the MG's... Sigh... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ahh, the curves... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Air Power, ...Its mistery is half its power."

JG53Frankyboy
06-30-2004, 09:28 AM
another think that keep me wondering about the MkIXs and Compare2.4 :

there is no F.MkIX in compare, "only" a LF.MkIX with normal wings. its a little bit slower than the LF.MkIX CW , butthats because of the CWs.
their engines have the same altitude charachteristicas. so, id the F.MkIX in game a F. with merlin61 ore a LF. with merlin66 - and the game just name it wrong ?

Hunde_3.JG51
06-30-2004, 10:17 AM
I like historical accuracy alot so I don't like seeing so many HF.Spitfire IX's flying around. I believe it saw limited use and in specific situations IIRC. Maybe I am wrong.

The thing that makes the Spitifre great is the tuneability of the Merlin engine for different altitudes. What an advantage for a plane to have. In real life it would be a tough choice and it would depend on where I am operating. I like the LF. because its climb was superior at low-medium altitudes to the F. and HF., and it's top speed was similar to F. (404mph vs. 408) though at a slightly lower altitude (21,000ft vs. 25,000ft).

In game I think the LF. out-performs the HF. in specific areas at low-medium altitudes and is never out-performed which seems right. Top speeds for all Spitifres seem a bit high but I'll wait for patch to see. So I guess what I am saying is that I prefer the LF.IX because I think it was an awesome plane in RL at low-medium altitudes.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

DONB3397
06-30-2004, 10:24 AM
Most have it right. The original "LF" reference seems to have been used with the Mk V. When the Fw190 eclipsed the V's performance, Supermarine engineers tried a half-dozen short term fixes. One was to install an upgraded supercharger with a cropped impeller which allowed an 18-pound boost improvement at about 6,000 feet and increased the Mk.V's top speed to 350 mph at lower altitudes. The improvement disappeared at higher altitudes where the air was thinner and the impeller was less efficient.

Coincidentally, the original "LF.V's" also featured the first clipped wings, another effort to match the 190's performance. But this was not specifically related to the LF modification.

The "HF" designation seems primarily associated with wing length. It was intended for high altitude bomber escort and intercept work. Originally it was applied to the Mk Vc and included an upgraded Merlin/supercharger package, standard wing length. The Mk VI HF's and all later HF's had 4 bladed propellers and 3 ft. 4 in. wing extensions (from 36 ft. 10 in. to 40 ft. 2 in.). The only exceptions were two IXe variants with E-type wings of standard length and Merlin 70's (supercharged 66's). Apparently these are the ones we have in FB.

Basically the first post was correct. The HF was optimized for high altitude and escort work; the LF designed for operations at low level.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v243/DONB3397/SpitSig01b.jpg
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death." -- Wordsworth

[This message was edited by DONB3397 on Wed June 30 2004 at 09:34 AM.]

[This message was edited by DONB3397 on Wed June 30 2004 at 09:36 AM.]

JG53Frankyboy
06-30-2004, 10:32 AM
well , the Spit IX familie in FB isnt rely well thought about http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

my choice would have been:
-F.MkIXc 1942 (merlin61 ;round rudder; pure fighter , so no bombs)
-F.MKIXe 1943 (merlin61 ,pointed rudder; bombs)
-LF.MKIXc 1943 (merlin66 ; normal wings)
-LF.MKIXe CW 1943 (merlin66 ; Clipped Wings)
-HF.MKIXe 1944 ? (long wings; as highalt interceptor no bombs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

but , just a personall taste in thinking about making COOP missions

hughlb2
06-30-2004, 11:51 AM
(The following is not a whine, just an extended observationhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

I just had a read of the Boscombe Down report comparing a mkIX Merlin 66 to a mkIX Merlin 70 (LF vs HF) and it seems that the LF was indeed a noticeably better performer at low/medium altitude over the HF, certainly better than how IL2 Compare shows its performance. Here's the link -

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

Read the report then if you have IL2 Compare 2.4 go into it and compare the IX LF to IX HF (unclipped for both) and you can see that the performance for the HF seems somewhat overmodelled at low altitude. (Or the LF is undermodelled) eitherway, they perform identically up to 3000m.

Bring on the patchhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

biggs222
06-30-2004, 12:00 PM
the thing is, i think that there IS the "F"mkIX in AEP. Oleg didnt lable the Normal winged mkIX "LF" he just has it as mkIX, and the LF is the clipped one... BOTH OF THEM SHOULD BE LABLED AS "LF"! that needs to be fixed.

horseback
06-30-2004, 12:08 PM
First of all, there was no long winged High altitude Mk IX with c or e wings. Some extended tips were seen on Mk VIIIs in the Med, but Mk VIIIs were never operational in the ETO. HF designation for the Mk IX was strictly a matter of what kind of engine supercharger setting was used.

Incidentally, in 1942, the Mk IX was a stopgap substitute for the Mk VIII, which was structurally designed for the bigger engine that the Mk IX stuffed into a Mk V airframe. The major identifier for the Mk IX models are longer nose, six exhaust stubs on a side, 4-bladed prop, and a fixed tailwheel. Mk VIIIs had a retractable tailwheel, which was the only external visual difference from the Mk IX and XVI (the Mk XVI was essentially a Mk IX witha Packard Merlin, instead of the Rolls').

Improvements like the broader pointed rudder, larger elevator, Vokes' 'universal' carb intake filter, and the 'e' wing were installed in both types in a similar timeframe after the Mk VIII entered production in 1943.

Since the Spitfire was designed as a point defense fighter, with a shorter range than its American contemporaries, it was used primarily for short medium level sweeps or escorts (RAF B-25s and USAAF B-26s) across the Channel most often, with rare, first leg escort assignments for high altitude daylight bombers before D-Day. After D-Day, Spitfire units were deployed to forward bases in France to defend the battlefield area and attack ground targets of opportunity, hence the appearance of centerline or wing bomb carrying hardpoints.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

horseback
06-30-2004, 12:12 PM
I should also say that the primary use of the Spit was the defense of the UK, and that the Mk IX continued in parallel production with the Mk VIII because of it's success.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

hughlb2
06-30-2004, 12:15 PM
my appologies to people, I think I've been leading everyone on a wild goose chase by accident.

I checked in FB, the mkIX spits are as follows (in QMB)

-MkIXc
-LF MkIXc (CW)
-MkIXe
-LF MkIXe (CW)
-HF MkIXe

The "IL2 Compare" spit IX entries are as follows -

-HF MkIXc
-LF MkIXc (CW)
-LF MkIXc

You can see that the names don't match the in-game names, so who knows what spits I was comparing. I think to avoid this confusion in the future, the proper names have to be entered into the next version of IL2 Compare.

JG53Frankyboy
06-30-2004, 12:46 PM
well, perhaps IL2copmpare got i right !
that was my question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

is the in game called F.MkIX actually a LF.MkIX , means with normal wings - so ALL SpitMkIX in game,except the HF one, are engined by Merlin66 ?
so we would not have a Spitfire MkIX with merlin 61 ?

think only Oleg can answer that for sure - would be interesting , wouldnt it ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DONB3397
06-30-2004, 03:19 PM
I'm not much interested in a circular debate here. But in the interest of accuracy, I believe I said that the IX HFs were NOT extended wing variants. They did have Merlin 70s, and a number were produced with e-type wings according to the production records I've seen.

However, the earlier HF's, including all of the VIs had 40 ft. 2 in. spans. One hundred (100) were production built; the rest were modifications. Perhaps the editors of my sources got it wrong; I just don't think so.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v243/DONB3397/SpitSig01b.jpg
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death." -- Wordsworth

Willey
06-30-2004, 06:04 PM
FB has some naming errors and one important IX missing. I'll start out with the Vs because the LF stuff started there.

Spit F Mk.V - this is the standard variant with Merlin 45, 46 or 50 engine. Don't know about the differeces. And I don't know which we have in FB. 41 plane.

Spit F Mk.V CW - After they met the FW-190s, they decided to give the Spit a boost in roll rate by clipping it's wings. This was done in 42. It's also some 5mph faster at all altitudes, has a little worse low speed handling and a tad less climb&turn rates, but better acceleration.

Spit LF Mk.V - Another step to compete the FWs was lowering the rated altitude and increasing the boos there. It's eqipped with the Merlin 45M, 46M or 50M engine (50M in FB) which has cropped impeller blades in the supercharger. This boosts up it's manifold pressure from 16 to 18 lb/sq" down low. Below 3000m it was faster than the Fs and it also gained in ROC. Above that it was worse than the Fs. It was tested in 42 already, but it appeard in numbers first in '43.

Spit LF Mk.V CW - Just the same like above with clipped wings, also '43.

Spit F Mk.IX - This is the one that FB is lacking. The Spit that countered the FW-190A in '42, equipped with a Merlin 61 engine (15lb/sq" max).

Now it's getting hot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - because this is the last Spit F IX. There are just LF and HF from now on.

Spit LF Mk.IX - This is the one called F Mk.IX in FB. Has a Merlin 66 which is stronger than the 61 (18 instead of 15lb/sq" boost). However, here the performance boost was made for all altitudes. This one was used from 43 on

Spit LF Mk.IX CW - It's the same as above with clipped wings. Named LF Mk. IX in FB.

Spit HF Mk.IX - This one has the Merlin 70 engine which has a rised critical altitude giving her better high alt performance at the cost of low-med alt performance. It's a 44 plane.

As for the armament options:

Spit Mk.Vs came with the a (was rare), b and c wing if I'm not mistaken. The IXes first with the b (F in 42), then the c and later the e wing.

a - 8 .303 cal MGs
b - 4 .303 cal MGs + 2 Hispano Mk.I cannons, 60rpg
c - 4 .303 cal MGs or 2 .50 cal MGs + 2 Hispano Mk.V (correct me if I'm wrong with the mark) cannons, 120rpg + possible bombs and rockets load
e - 2 .50 cal MGs or 2 Hispano Mk.V, 140rpg + 2 Hispano Mk.V, 140rpg + possible bombs and rockets load. AFAIK it appeared in late 43/ early 44 which would make the "e"s 44 planes.

Also, some LF Mk.IX with Merlin 66s were driven with 150octane gas instead of 100octane. This allowed 25lb/sq" boost giving it a very high low altitude performance. This was also done with P-51s. Those planes were used to intercept V-Weapons.

WUAF_Badsight
06-30-2004, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:


The thing that makes the Spitifre great is the tuneability of the Merlin engine


Formerly Kyrule2
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kyrule ...... all air breathing petrol burning internal combustion motors can be tuned differently

they one & all can be optimised for different rev range power & different atmospheric conditions

without exception

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

horseback
07-01-2004, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
As for the armament options:

Spit Mk.Vs came with the a (was rare), b and c wing if I'm not mistaken. The IXes first with the b (F in 42), then the c and later the e wing.

a - 8 .303 cal MGs
b - 4 .303 cal MGs + 2 Hispano Mk.I cannons, 60rpg
c - 4 .303 cal MGs or 2 .50 cal MGs + 2 Hispano Mk.V (correct me if I'm wrong with the mark) cannons, 120rpg + possible bombs and rockets load
e - 2 .50 cal MGs or 2 Hispano Mk.V, 140rpg + 2 Hispano Mk.V, 140rpg + possible bombs and rockets load. AFAIK it appeared in late 43/ early 44 which would make the "e"s 44 planes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My sources say that the 'c' wing offered the option (rarely used) of two cannon in each wing with the two .303 MGs. The usual arrangement was 1X20mm cannon and two .303s in each wing. The stub outboard of the cannon was for the barrel of the second cannon, and usually plugged. Earlier examples had a wider 'teardrop' bulge to accomodate the second cannons' magazines (?), while later versions had a narrower fairing over the cannon.

.50 cal MG production did not reach levels to exceed US needs until early 1944, when the 'e' wing came out that summer (right after D-Day) with the .50 cal MG inboard of the 20mm cannon in each wing. The e wing also provided a hard point for bombs or a rocket or two, and possibly a leading edge fuel tank outboard of the guns.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Wannabe-Pilot
07-01-2004, 04:10 AM
What is an IL2 Compare and were can I get it?

I know that there is a program for downloading that compares different planes in IL2 in a chart form is this it?

hughlb2
07-01-2004, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
What is an IL2 Compare and were can I get it?

I know that there is a program for downloading that compares different planes in IL2 in a chart form is this it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes this what you looking forhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Here's a link to download it (scroll down the page to the zip version in Willyvic's post)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=595104324

This is version 2.4 (the latest), it shows the aircraft data in FB patch 2.01. Make sure you download a new version after patch 2.02 is released, so that you get the 2.02 aircraft data.

JG53Frankyboy
07-01-2004, 06:04 AM
well, do we have a proof that the L.MkIXs are with merlin66, so they would be in real LF.s too ?

doeas that mean the "e"Wing planes should be 1944 planes , not 43 ?

BADGER401
07-01-2004, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hughlb2:
Now correct me if i'm wrong - the LF mkIX is optimised for flight below 3000m and the HF is optimised for high altitude flight.

OK, so with this in mind I compared the two versions in IL2 Compare. The LF and HF performance (climb rate, true airspeed) is IDENTICAL under 3000m, but the HF excells at high altitude (like it should).

But here's the problem - Shouldn't the LF spit perform better than the HF spit at low altitude? If not, what would be the pupose of an LF version if the HF performs equally at low altitude and better at highhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

(I know the FM's are being fixed in 2.02, but I don't believe Oleg will change the FM between the LF and HF, just the spitIX in general, so this issue will probably still remain after 2.02)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>





The Spitfire was subject to continual development throughout the period 1939 - 1945 during which time the improvement in performance was clearly remarkable.
The following table gives some idea of the performance capabilities of all the major variants although it should be remembered that individual aircraft often exceeded, or indeed fell short of the official figures.
Mark Max. Speed Climb Rate Ceiling Range
I 355 mph at 19,000 ft. 6.2 mins to 15,000 ft. 34,000 ft. 395 miles
V 374 mph at 13,000 ft. 7.5 mins to 20,000 ft. 37,000 ft. 1,135 miles
VII 408 mph at 25,000 ft. 7.1 mins to 20,000 ft. 43,000 ft. 1,180 miles
VIII 408 mph at 25,000 ft. 7 mins to 20,000 ft. 44,000 ft. 1,180 miles
IX 408 mph at 25,000 ft. 6.7 mins to 20,000 ft. 44,000 ft 980 miles
X 416 mph at 27,000 ft. 5 mins to 20,000 ft. 44,000 ft. 1,360 miles
XI 422 mph at 27,500 ft. 5 mins to 20,000 ft. 44,000 ft. 2,000 miles
XII 393 mph at 18,000 ft. 6.7 mins to 20,000 ft. 40,000 ft. 493 miles
XIV 448 mph at 26,000 ft. 7 mins to 20,000 ft. 44,500 ft. 850 miles
XVIII 442 mph at 25,000 ft. 7 mins to 20,000 ft. 41,000 ft. 850 miles
XIX 446 mph at 26,000 ft. 15.5 mins to 35,000 ft 42,000 ft. 1,550 miles
F.21 454 mph at 26,000 ft. 8 mins to 20,000 ft. 43,500 ft. 880 miles
F.24 450 mph at 19,000 ft. 5 mins to 20,000 ft. 43,000 ft. 965 miles
Seafire.I 365 mph at 16,000 ft. 7.6 mins to 20,000 ft. 36,400 ft. 770 miles
Seafire III 352 mph at 12,250 ft. 8.1 mins to 20,000 ft. 34,000 ft. 725 miles
Seafire 47 451 mph at 20,000 ft 4.8 mins to 20,000 ft. 43,000 ft. 1,475 miles