News of our Beloved Spitfire?

[Feathered_IV]

You guys are way too easy to troll.

 

Of course the Spitfire is beautiful, everyone agrees about that.

 

My dear chap.  There are some things one just does not joke about... 

[Wulf]

But you have spent years explaining that FW-190's seal clubbed Spit Mk V's over France and the Channel in 41/42

 

what has changed 

 

 

Still looking forward to the Mk V though, even in a mid 43 environment in certain (maybe rare?)  instances it should be able to hold its own, 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Nothing has changed.  I believe the A-3 is a better aircraft than the Mk V.  My point has always been that if a battle hardened aircraft such as the Mk V Spit would likely struggle in combat against an A-3, (at least, that was the RAF's viewpoint) it 's simply unrealistic to imagine that early examples of aircraft like the Lagg-3 and Yak 1 would miraculously prove to be its equal.  

 

But the Mk V should be a worthy adversary for a F2 or even an F4 in certain circumstances.  The Mk V was still a pretty good fighter in 41-42.

Edited March 18, 2017 by Wulf

[Brano]

...but not in 43. Soviets were not impressed

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

My dear chap.  There are some things one just does not joke about... 

Ok how do I say this ... "Beautiful" is not among the adjectives that come to my mind when I see a spitfire. 

 

However even though the spit might be horribly outclassed by '43 it will still be no easy task to shoot it down. I think in combination with other airplanes the spit has great potential to keep the enemy busy while for example a p39 climbs above the 109.

[Finkeren]

...but not in 43. Soviets were not impressed

But then again: The Soviets were not impressed by the Fw 190 either, and it's still pretty darned good after the FM revision.

 

I suspect, that in the Spit we might get something not too far from the Yak-1b, but with a few notable differences:

 

Probably a slightly better sustained turn in exchange for an inferior roll rate.

 

Better performance at altitude, worse on the deck.

 

Higher weight of fire, but more spread out. Convergence will be supremely important.

 

Slightly better dive perfomance (and higher max speed) slightly better climb rate.

 

And most important of all: Time limits on the engine.

[Finkeren]

My point has always been that if a battle hardened aircraft such as the Mk V Spit would likely struggle in combat against an A-3, (at least, that was the RAF's viewpoint) it 's simply unrealistic to imagine that early examples of aircraft like the Lagg-3 and Yak 1 would miraculously prove to be its equal.

Well, for one thing, we don't have any early versions of the LaGG-3 or Yak-1 in the sim, and the Fw 190s outclass the later LaGG in nearly every aspect, and the Yak-1 s.69 in most.

 

You seem to still be stuck in the mindset, that the Fw 190 sucks in this sim. It doesn't.

[Lusekofte]

Interestly enough FW 190 didn't  impress Russian designers, about the only thing they copied was the KG 13 grip. But I think these statement came in 44 when some russian planes actually outperformed the FW

Edited March 18, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I think the Spitfire will find itself in a similar Position to the I-16, slow but always ready to surprise an Arrogant Attacker. It's one of those Aircraft you have to play psychological Warfare in, pretend to have more Energy than you have in some Situations, less in others. It will be Outdived by a LaGG-3 so BnZ isn't really that much of an Option either. 

 

And by Outdived I am talking about Dive Angle in Relation to Speed, not total Dive Speed Overall, in that  it won't fail to impress. 

[Wulf]

Well, for one thing, we don't have any early versions of the LaGG-3 or Yak-1 in the sim, and the Fw 190s outclass the later LaGG in nearly every aspect, and the Yak-1 s.69 in most.

 

You seem to still be stuck in the mindset, that the Fw 190 sucks in this sim. It doesn't.

 

 

Well, I'm happy enough with the A-3.  In fact, I think it's pretty good.  The A-5 on the other hand I'm not so sure about.  Although I find it nice and fast it's also been my experience that almost any Soviet fighter can easily get out of its way in a  BnZ attack.  The aircraft's flight characteristics are not as good as the A-3.  I'm somewhat surprised that the addition of 6" to the length of the engine mounts would cause such a significant difference but then again maybe it did.

 

Also, I haven't seen any literature that references this change but then again, I haven't read every book on the aircraft either. 

 

Anyone got a useful reference??

[Finkeren]

Funny. I don't find much difference in handling between the A3 and the A5. Both are supremely maneuverable at higher speeds.

[Brano]

Soviets were not impressed by spit V as when they were deployed at Kuban in 43,VVS allready had its own fighters doing the same job as good as spit,if not better. Pilots flying Spits didnt manage to amass as significant success as airacobra pilots. Sasha Pokryshkin participated in mock-up dogfight between cobra,spit and yak. Well,spit didnt came out as a winner.

Same as hurricanes and also later MkIX spits were relegated to the second line duties in PVO. But for more practical reasons,not that they were bad. It was easier to maintain them behind the front line rather then have yet another type of fighter in frontline IAD to take care of with spare parts and maintenance. Their good instrument equipment,radios and high altitude performance were properties valued by PVO units flying in more difficult weather conditions then regular frontline units.

[Wulf]

Funny. I don't find much difference in handling between the A3 and the A5. Both are supremely maneuverable at higher speeds.

 

 

This is a Spitfire thread so I won't argue the toss about their relative merits here.  Actually, I was going to raise the subject (A-3 vs A-5) in a separate thread but ultimately didn't because I suspected, once again, it would just degenerate in a shambles with all the unhelpful comments from all the usual suspects (the non-190 people) who, although never having flown the model nevertheless feel compelled to pitch-in with their 2 cents worth. 

[unreasonable]

I am waiting to see what the FM is like.  The airfoil used for the Spitfire was almost the same as for the P-40, although other elements of the wing design were of course different, including the sublime double ellipse shape.

 

The P-40 in game suffers - like the 190 in it's penultimate revision - from an exceptionally low critical angle of attack, which is one of the things that makes it hard to fly and limits it's turn performance, according to the experts unrealistically. Why? If anyone knows, they are not yet saying, all our document buffs as yet unable to find any justification for this feature.  Inquiries to Han have not yet reached the top of his in-tray, apparently. 

 

If the BoX Spitfire shares this feature, there will be trouble......  and if not, the P-40 crowd will be even more puzzled.

 

I am sure that the Spitfire will still score in MP however - approaching Germans will be so stunned by the beauty of it's lines compared to the boxy Yaks and vulgar boy-racer MiGs that they are used to shooting up, that they will lose their orientation and become easy victims.

[Finkeren]

The principal difference between the case of the P-40 and the Spitfire is weight. Regardless whether the FM of the P-40 is done right (I have no strong oppinion on the matter), the P-40 is darned heavy, that it won't ever be like the Spit. A combat loaded P-40E is some 750kg heavier than the Spit Mk. V for a slightly smaller wing area and an engine that develops several hundred HP less power. Even if the P-40s design was more efficient than the Spit's (which I doubt) they would not be handling anything similar.

[ShamrockOneFive]

We'll have to wait and see how the Spitfire flies in this... Should be a good one hopefully.

[Bullets]

I think I could cope if it flies a bit better than a lagg and will be happy if its near a yaks standard but if they make it anything like the p40 I will uninstall   

[unreasonable]

The principal difference between the case of the P-40 and the Spitfire is weight. Regardless whether the FM of the P-40 is done right (I have no strong oppinion on the matter), the P-40 is darned heavy, that it won't ever be like the Spit. A combat loaded P-40E is some 750kg heavier than the Spit Mk. V for a slightly smaller wing area and an engine that develops several hundred HP less power. Even if the P-40s design was more efficient than the Spit's (which I doubt) they would not be handling anything similar.

 

That is all true of course but it should have no bearing on the AoA issue. Critical AoA is independent of weight. At least according to the FAA.

[Finkeren]

That is all true of course but it should have no bearing on the AoA issue. Critical AoA is independent of weight. At least according to the FAA.

Sure, a fixed-wing aircraft always stalls at the same AoA, regardless of weight. But the critical AoA is determined by more than just the aerofoil. Wing shape plays an important part too.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

You are aware of this thing called inergia and leverage? Those little Guns sitting this far out have ton of inertia and are quite bad for Agiliy. And the 4 Guns with ammo weigh in at around 30kg per gun with Ammo, so 120 kg nearer to the Wingtip than the fzselage. And the Cannons are fairly far Outboard as well.

[Finkeren]

You are aware of this thing called inergia and leverage? Those little Guns sitting this far out have ton of inertia and are quite bad for Agiliy. And the 4 Guns with ammo weigh in at around 30kg per gun with Ammo, so 120 kg nearer to the Wingtip than the fzselage. And the Cannons are fairly far Outboard as well.

Non-clipped wing Spits weren't exactly known for their roll rate in the first place, and the outboard MGs are part of the reason, but only part.

[Wulf]

You are aware of this thing called inergia and leverage? Those little Guns sitting this far out have ton of inertia and are quite bad for Agiliy. And the 4 Guns with ammo weigh in at around 30kg per gun with Ammo, so 120 kg nearer to the Wingtip than the fzselage. And the Cannons are fairly far Outboard as well.

 

 

Hmmmm ... well that's a bit weird.  The wingtip tanks on the La-5, as modeled, didn't seem to adversely impact the roll rate of that aircraft.      Hmmmm  ...mmmm

[Riderocket]

 

does this game model flexing/twisting of the wing?

 

 

 

Yes. watch the wing from fixed camera position using alt f2 and forward time

[Finkeren]

Hmmmm ... well that's a bit weird. The wingtip tanks on the La-5, as modeled, didn't seem to adversely impact the roll rate of that aircraft. Hmmmm ...mmmm

That's because currently the effect of the weight of the changing fuel load is simplified. IIRC fuel load currently only affects overall weight and CG, meaning that it has no effect on for instance inertia of the wings.

 

It's one of the things, that the devs said, they would like to make more detailed at some point along with manually operated fuel tanks.

[Lusekofte]

Initially I was afraid for another FW 190 A3 earthquake when the Spit would be released, but I actually think people are going to be pretty mature about it and its capabilities. What troubles me a bit is the fact that this plane will not make 109 and fw pilots change any tactics . They just need to do what they always have. 

It might be a slight derail , but has anyone good with the LA 5 F manage to shake those pilots a bit? I heard rumours it can surprise a bit, sadly I am not good in any plane

[Finkeren]

I've seen a few ppl claim, that the La-5F is quite formidable in the right hands. But all the "evidence" I've seen for it so far involved videos of LW pilots struggling a little more than usual against a single La-5 and ultimately always ending up shooting it down anyway. The problem for the La-5 is much the same as for the Fw 190A3 prior to the FM revision: It takes a lot of skill, experience and dedication to truly outfly any moderately skilled LW pilot and there is very little room for errors.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Until the La5FN/La7, Yak 3, and late Yak 9s come along, the LW will not have any trouble being top dog in any East Front online engagement.

 

Moot point though, as the Pacific is where we are headed next, and things will be a bit more even there.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I've seen a few ppl claim, that the La-5F is quite formidable in the right hands. But all the "evidence" I've seen for it so far involved videos of LW pilots struggling a little more than usual against a single La-5 and ultimately always ending up shooting it down anyway. The problem for the La-5 is much the same as for the Fw 190A3 prior to the FM revision: It takes a lot of skill, experience and dedication to truly outfly any moderately skilled LW pilot and there is very little room for errors.

Who you callin' moderately skilled?

 

[A_radek]

It might be a slight derail , but has anyone good with the LA 5 F manage to shake those pilots a bit? I heard rumours it can surprise a bit, sadly I am not good in any plane

I've had some success with it and really enjoy it when the 'F' engine is available. Roll rate is amazing. But like fink says it can't match 109 or 190 performance in a fair and equal skill fight. Already at 2000m alt the 109 will be faster than you, and even higher both 109 and 190 will be far superior

 

My simple strategy has been cruising full boost at 500-1500m altitude searching for low and slow targets. For some reason there is no shortage on those. Never slow down and always check six as keen eyed people will be diving on you, and if you don't spot them early you won't at all - rearward visibility is that bad. Enter a very shallow dive once somethings cought on and a diving f4 will not be able to catch up as long as you spotted it early. A 190 though will easily catch you. Down on the deck I suspect the la could outmaneuver the 190. But have yet to meet one on those terms without interference.

 

La5 strength lies in that it can keep that speed up til fuel runs out, while especially the f4 is limited to it's emergency power duration.

 

Try it. No need for pilot skills with this one

For the "f" engine:

 

Intake: 100

Outlet: 5 on autumn, 0 on wintermaps.

Oil rad: 30 on autumn, 20 on wintermaps

Proppitch and mixture 100.

~ -90 pitch trim once at speed.

Edited March 19, 2017 by a_radek

[Bullets]

Choo choo

 

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Moot point though, as the Pacific is where we are headed next, and things will be a bit more even there.

 

I bet you, like I fly allied today, because of the unbalance on servers, I probably fly Japanese in PTO for the same reason against the same people.    

[BlitzPig_EL]

That's how it played out in Pacific Fighters, and '46.  The Luftwaffe guys mostly all flew US.

 

They always gravitate to the "better" planes, don't you know.

[ShamrockOneFive]

That did tend to happen. I ended up becoming a D3A specialist as a result.

 

The Midway set is pretty evenly balanced one way or another though people who fly the Yak versus the Bf109 will probably know the skills required to make the A6M2 fight the Wildcat.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Planning on flying the Wildcat for sure. Won't mind being a bit of an underdog as long as I have good wingmen (and I do)!

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's such a classic fight between the Wildcat and Zero... People will be itching for those two to arrive in the sim. I kind of hope that an early release is those two plus some sort of island dogfight map just to wet the appetite for early access.

Edited March 20, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[Feathered_IV]

There have been some real curveballs in aircraft performance over the course of the sim. So much so that I find any preconceived notions of relative performance need to go out the window. I can't imagine what the Zero vs Wildcat matchup will translate to.

[A_radek]

There have been some real curveballs in aircraft performance over the course of the sim. So much so that I find any preconceived notions of relative performance need to go out the window. I can't imagine what the Zero vs Wildcat matchup will translate to.

Exactly. If current p40 performance is a disappointment. Imagine the wildcat.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Can't wait to fly the Zero after reading Shattered Sword.

[Bullets]

ANNYYwayyyy, just a quick query, has anyone managed to tell which engine we are getting via the screenshots of the Spit? I seem to remember asking Jason which one are getting when it was announced and he said the Merlin 46 but I can't be 100% sure of my memory     I think it would be pretty cool to get both engines, it would give the spit more usability?? Merlin 45 for low altitude missions where you get more power and then Merlin 46 for higher altitude missions. Only if its not too much work though   How many Kuban Spits had Merlin 45 & Merlin 46 engines out of interest? 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It's going to be Merlin 46 if I recall. Data I have for Spitfire V with Merlin 46 and non tropical cowling give it a top speed of 375 mph and time to 20,000 feet of about 7.3 min. It's not going to be a speed demon but should be a lot more competitive than P-40. Although I still prefer a battery of four to six Brownings, will see how Hispanos do in Il-2.

[JG5_Zesphr]

TBH The Spit is a weird choice. The Actual La-5F or my beloved La-5FN would have been a much better choice IMO