Spitfire - Maybe a Little Too Good?

[Jizzo]

Now you really got me thinking, if we actually will notice any major difference on the Spit, after 2.012 is released. 

[-SF-Disarray]

Could it be that some of the success of the Spitfire in the current MP environment simply be down to LW pilots having not adjusted to the new plane? The flight characteristics of the Spitfire are somewhat different from those of most Soviet planes. If this is the case, shouldn't the Spitfire kill rate balance as more LW pilots gain experience fighting it in the mix? I guess what I'm driving at is it may be a bit too early to draw any conclusions on the Spitfire and its OP-ness or lack there of. Give it time, gather data and then evaluate.

[eRoN]

The "dumbing it down" behavior is actually how aircrafts behave when they have enough speed. The wobble should only happen when it's very slow according to the real pilots I talked to so no, they are not making it arcade but more realistic ...

 

Well as long as it is more realistic then that's fine, i just want as close to real as possible, thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

I'm not really sure what people mean about 'wobble' though. I fly the 109's and don't normally get it, except at high altitudes where it's constant wobble. Is this what people mean?

[Finkeren]

You simply have to recalculate your lead and angles in the 190 and convert your measurements from Yak to Spitfire.

 

There is only a very small envelope where the Spitfire is a threat to the 190.

 

Both Yaks are a clearly superior threat.

 

One person commented online in chat "I used to love the Spitfire but now I'm starting to hate it".

I think you hit the nail on the head. People were smitten at first by the handling and amazingly effective elevator as well as the potent armament.

 

But in the end that just can't hide the fact, that the Spit is an early 1941 design (with a higher boost allowance on the engine, but still) trying to fight in a 1943 invironmemt.

 

It. Is. Just. Too. Darned. Slow.

 

It's almost the same as the I-16. People were amazed by its agility and acceleration at low speeds and some were deeply frustrated when they tried to fight it on its own terms.

[cellinsky]

 

 

But in the end that just can't hide the fact, that the Spit is an early 1941 design (with a higher boost allowance on the engine, but still) trying to fight in a 1943 invironmemt. It. Is. Just. Too. Darned. Slow.

 

Wasnt this one the reasons the  IX was introduced as a in between solution before the VIII or even the XIV was available? To effectively counter the 190 then new in service?

[LLv34_Wmaker]

When comparing the data that Han posted about the IL2:Box Spitfire Mk.Vb to the data produced by the RAE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_V_Level_Speed_RAE.jpg), the Spitfire in game is roughly 25 km/h faster on the deck at 16lbs compared to the real life example tested by the RAE.

[Finkeren]

Wasnt this one the reasons the  IX was introduced as a in between solution before the VIII or even the XIV was available? To effectively counter the 190 then new in service?

 

Yes, although honestly I very much doubt, that the Fw 190 was a leading cause, even if that is a popular notion. The Spit Mk. V (at least the high altitude versions) was outclassed by the Bf 109 too with the arrival of the F4.

[Quax]

I really don't understand where people get this idea that Dogfights never happened in real life from..... Or that for whatever reason 109s were incapable of flying them.... 

 

There have been a lot of turning dogfights in RL. But the main reason for the different situation in any simulator is, that in RL the pilot was the limiting factor in a turning fight, and in any simulator the FM is the limiting factor.

Every coach potato pilot is able for "max g undefinite turns at optimum corner speed" ! So you will never be able to recreate the real life situation of a turning fight.

 

PS:

 

I did post an interview with a friend of mine a year ago, who flew 109s and 190s, and said, the only difference to him was the limited view of the 190 (forward down). The turn rate limit just hasn´t been the "FM" as in a sim.

[Irgendjemand]

Every coach potato pilot

 

So true. Many here tend to forget what they are.

Nothing more than that!

 

Thanks

Edited July 11, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[EAF19_Marsh]

Yes, although honestly I very much doubt, that the Fw 190 was a leading cause, even if that is a popular notion. The Spit Mk. V (at least the high altitude versions) was outclassed by the Bf 109 too with the arrival of the F4.

 

 

No, it was. The VIII (2nd gen airframe) was supposed to replace the Vs, but adding a 60-series to the V airframe was easier / quicker so that received priority. Many of the early IXs are really Vs (albeit with the symmetrical cooling system) and it is only later that the 'true' IXs are produced outright. Shame, as it mean that the lovely Mk VIII is never used in terribly large numbers.

 

Not sure how outclassed was the V by the F4; I thought they were pretty much equal in many respects.

[Finkeren]

Not sure how outclassed was the V by the F4; I thought they were pretty much equal in many respects.

 

Speed, dive performance and climb rate. Those three being rather important.

[Kurfurst]

Not sure how outclassed was the V by the F4; I thought they were pretty much equal in many respects.

 

For the F-2 you could say it was close, though the F-2 was slightly faster.

 

The F-4 is a whole different beast. Even at its early rating of 1,3ata, it was some 30-40 km/h faster. When increased ratings were cleared for the F-4s DB 601E (around the turnover of 1941/42) it was some 70 km/h faster at altitude.

 

The V vs F matchup was neither helped by the fact that the Mark Vs were sometimes produced in appealing quality, and in practice many of them were not even faster than Mk Is, though production quality did improve later on.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Of course, that is such a given that it doesn't need to be said. Whoever has the E advantage will have a significant edge. But let's not pretend A/C performance don't matter.

 

Sure, if Yak-1s get the jump on 109s, the 109s will be in trouble, but if they manage to survive long enough the 109s will stand a good chance to reach co-energy and eventually surpass the Yak-1s.

 

The same, however, cannot be said of the other way around. If it is the 109s that start with an E advantage, the only reason they will ever lose it is if they make a mistake. The Yak-1s will never get the upper hand, and always be at an energy disadvantage no matter how well they try to climb or extend: they are outperformed.

This is a pretty big misconception I see posted on the forums by a lot of pilots. Yes the 109 has an opportunity after a significant amount of time to disengage somewhat with a hailstorm of allied ammunition trying to ruin the escape, but let's not discount the fact that to get to that point the Yak pilot has also had to make some significant mistakes.

 

A competent Yak pilot would have consistently downed a 109 before there is any chance of separation using its energy advantage to negate the speed and climb advantages of the 109 and turn radius and rate advantages to achieve a firing solution.

 

Making mistakes and loosing the fight isn't all one sided.

 

The Yak1 trying to get an upper hand via climbing or extending against a plane with strengths in that area is doing it wrong. (Which I know is not what you were really trying to say but I'll use it out of context anyway).

 

A Yak1 gaining angles advantage through a turn fight negating his enemies energy advantage and getting a potential firing opportunity as a bonus against a 109 pilot that no longer has enough energy to disengage safely is also at a performance advantage.

 

Where the 109 comes into its own is its ability to disengage from a fight it has started whereby all advantages are not yet lost.

 

A Yak typically has to commit to a fight it's has commenced until the end. The energy advantage reserve needed to disengage is more significant.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Tripwire

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

There have been a lot of turning dogfights in RL. But the main reason for the different situation in any simulator is, that in RL the pilot was the limiting factor in a turning fight, and in any simulator the FM is the limiting factor.

Every coach potato pilot is able for "max g undefinite turns at optimum corner speed" ! So you will never be able to recreate the real life situation of a turning fight.

 

PS:

 

I did post an interview with a friend of mine a year ago, who flew 109s and 190s, and said, the only difference to him was the limited view of the 190 (forward down). The turn rate limit just hasn´t been the "FM" as in a sim.

 

Sure, not saying that the way we fly is always or even mostly representative of how RL fights were flown. Just that dogfights did happen. Go take a look at that 109 Myths thing posted from yesterday and read about the guy outturning Mustangs at 250km/h at 2000m. It happened. Pilots were undoubtedly more cautious about getting into those fights but some people did try, and successfully so, to dogfight.

 

Also not all couch potatoes are created equal. If it were easy to extract max performance from an aircraft, everyone would be good. Most people have no clue how to really fly their virtual plane on the limit. You'd be surprised how well certain people can outturn others in the same aircraft...

[CIA_Yankee_]

Where the 109 comes into its own is its ability to disengage from a fight it has started whereby all advantages are not yet lost.

 

A Yak typically has to commit to a fight it's has commenced until the end. The energy advantage reserve needed to disengage is more significant.

 

Well, truth be told the above is precisely what I meant. Performance matters. It isn't just a matter of who gets the jump on who.

 

This is why speed and climb rate were seen as decisive advantages since the SPAD days: they allow the dominant aircraft to dictate the terms of the engagement (and disengagement).

 

In that respect, the Spit hasn't changed the balance of power in any way, shape, or form. It might have made the "escape window" narrower for the 109, by having extreme turn capabilities tied to decent performance (as opposed to the I-16), but so long as the LW flies to its strength there's very little difference, which is my answer to the thought that the Spit might be "too good".

 

Now, if we have a Spit IX things would likely be different, but we'll have to contend with the Yak-1b as the only real game changer (or as close to it as we'll ever get, unless we reach the late war).

[Dr_Molem]

Of course, that is such a given that it doesn't need to be said. Whoever has the E advantage will have a significant edge. But let's not pretend A/C performance don't matter.

 

Of course it matters ! That was exactly my point.

 

For now, a 109 that get jumped by a Spitfire can still save its ass by maneuvering. But i fear that after the next FM update, it will no longer be possible, and 109 pilots will have to redouble their efforts, mainly because their mid/high speed maneuvering capabilities will get affected, and not a bit.

 

Meanwhile, a FW 190 that get jumped by a Spitfire has much more options (quick separation by diving, high speed reversal, or simply sow the Spitty with 2 Split-S,...).

 

As Tripwire said, i think we will see more and more conversion to FW 190 in the near future.

[Luftschiff]

I'm really not an expert on the Spitfire and have no desire to get dragged into a FM debate so let me just first state that this is just an honest query and not an argument. I'm looking to be educated.

My own, highly personal impression flying the Spitfire so far, as compared to all allied and axis fighters that I have considerable time in (exempting the Yak1b which I do not own) is that it is a very competent, very pleasant airplane with extremely potent cannons, counteracted by a ridiculously small ammo capacity, and borderline useless 303's. I mentally filed it away as extremely dangerous if flown by a skilled pilot, and a plane that will be very popular, but ultimately - not in any way a game-changer or OP plane. I'd probably think twice against engaging it in any current axis fighter, but I'm not a very good fighter pilot to start with. Conversely, it wouldn't be my first pick on the allied side, I still much prefer the LaGG-3, I-16 and La 5.

My issues, or more appropriately: Questions, such as they are - have been touched upon earlier in the thread. By all accounts I have read; journals, reports, test sheets and other books - the Mk.Vb was given to the soviets largely because it was becoming obsolete. Because it is an excellent plane it was well liked - but still, and I paraphrase Finkeren: "An early 1941 plane in a 1943 setting". All information I have at hand suggests It should be on par with the likes of the 202 and F2, and pretty handily outclassed by even the early 190. I don't think the Spit is OP, but I also feel like it is absolutely can threaten the whole range of 109's in just about any envelope, and I would probably bail immediately if I had to fight a spit in the Macchi. Is this reconcilable with historical facts? Are there any parameters that might currently be worth looking at, either for the spit or for planes such as the macchi? Keep it civil, please, gents.
 

Edited July 11, 2017 by Luftschiff

[Bullets]

 I don't think the Spit is OP, but I also feel like it absolutely wrecks the whole range of 109's, and I would probably bail immediately if I had to fight a spit in the macchi.

 

 

with respect if you think the spit wrecks the whole range of 109's you are flying them wrong.. The are faster climb better and hold onto energy better and even probably roll better (Just an assumption). 

[Luftschiff]

with respect if you think the spit wrecks the whole range of 109's you are flying them wrong.. The are faster climb better and hold onto energy better and even probably roll better (Just an assumption). 

 

Aye, that was indeed hyperbole, I'll fix it! Always feel free to assume I am flying [x] wrong, you're likely to be right, but you are also picking at a rather unessential part of my question and so I maintain the line of inquiry. There is indeed a performance difference, especially on paper - I am certainly not saying it outperforms, but in actual combat the spitfire seems competent enough across the board that average pilots can achieve near enough parity with any of the more modern designs, and mostly outclass its contemporaries such as the Macchi. If the situation is indeed as you suggest, that even a much later plane must be flown flawlessly to remain the aggressor in a given conflict, is that reconcilable with historical accounts? Again, not a rethorical question, I want to learn all I can.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Luftschiff

[Barnacles]

Aye, that was indeed hyperbole, I'll fix it! Always feel free to assume I am flying [x] wrong, you're likely to be right, but you are also picking at a rather unessential part of my question and so I maintain the line of inquiry. There is indeed a performance difference, especially on paper - I am certainly not saying it outperforms, but in actual combat the spitfire seems competent enough across the board that average pilots can achieve near enough parity with any of the more modern designs, and mostly outclass its contemporaries such as the Macchi. If the situation is indeed as you suggest, that even a much later plane must be flown flawlessly to remain the aggressor in a given conflict, is that reconcilable with historical accounts? Again, not a rethorical question, I want to learn all I can.

 

I'm not an expert on the spit either, but regarding your time period question, ie it outperforms its contemporaries, didn't the 16lb boost for the spit come later in the war? Flying the BoS spit without the 16lb boost renders the performance closer to the MC202, F2 etc.

 

Horsepower makes a massive difference. (Has anyone tried to fly the p40 in a QM with 'unbreakable' realism box ticked? You can run that thing at 56"mp and 3000rpm all day and it transforms the effectiveness of that aircraft.) The spit according to historical accounts and in the game, has a very powerful engine at 16lb so it is on a level playing field with many later fighters, at least when flying it on an MP server in 2017.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm not an expert on the spit either, but regarding your time period question, ie it outperforms its contemporaries, didn't the 16lb boost for the spit come later in the war? Flying the BoS spit without the 16lb boost renders the performance closer to the MC202, F2 etc.

 

Horsepower makes a massive difference. (Has anyone tried to fly the p40 in a QM with 'unbreakable' realism box ticked? You can run that thing at 56"mp and 3000rpm all day and it transforms the effectiveness of that aircraft.) The spit according to historical accounts and in the game, has a very powerful engine at 16lb so it is on a level playing field with many later fighters, at least when flying it on an MP server in 2017.

 

If my memory serves... +9lbs was more common in the early days of the Spitfire V (in 1941). They progressively improved performance through the run of the Mark V to help it stay at least somewhat competitive. A majority of RAF squadrons were still flying the Mark V on D-Day and only some had upgraded to the Mark IX by that point.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

If i'm correct the +16 psi boost was cleared in November 1942.

[Blutaar]

Horsepower makes a massive difference. (Has anyone tried to fly the p40 in a QM with 'unbreakable' realism box ticked? You can run that thing at 56"mp and 3000rpm all day and it transforms the effectiveness of that aircraft.) The spit according to historical accounts and in the game, has a very powerful engine at 16lb so it is on a level playing field with many later fighters, at least when flying it on an MP server in 2017.

 

I tried that and its awesome, thx for this tip, now i can test the .50 cals on fighterplanes yay. I like the 50s and they do alot of damage.

[Irgendjemand]

Cooldowntimer of the spit aside (wich is to be tested according to devs) I cannot complain about the performance of the spitfire. That being said as a primarily german pilot and having it flown myself for a while.
Only thing i complain about is the absolutely devastating performance of the 20mm hispanos. In my eyes riddiculous that it shreds apart whatever it hits. No matter what (aircraft wise).
From all ive read and heard this is what german 20mm mineshells should perform like - maybe even not that good. And everything else should perform worse to varying degrees IMHO.
 

[Finkeren]

Based on personal experience so far, I would place the HS cannon somewhere between the MG 151/20 and the VYa 23 in terms of damage, which seems about right, given how large and heavy the HS shells are.

[LuftManu]

From my experience, the spitfire is gorgeous when fighting close and personal. As long as the german don´t go above 500 km/h and dont out climb you it will be even. The problem is that most 109 drivers try to outmaneouver the russian planes and do the same with the spitfire, different story. (At least for now, with the FMs)

 

Anyway, in high speeds the spitfire is useless, the elevators aren´t metal, right?

 

It seems a good representation of one of the best aircraft in the war. Its glory comes from something. And for the first time, you can really watch how a 190 can be effective. Use high speed maenouvers and turns on the Focke Wulf and you are invencible

Edited July 12, 2017 by LF_ManuV

[Tektolnes]

Anyway, in high speeds the spitfire is useless, the elevators aren´t metal, right?

 

The rudder and elevators are fabric covered - don't think this was changed until the Mk.XXII

 

The ailerons have a light alloy covering - this change from a fabric aileron was implemented towards the end of 1940.

[Dr_Molem]

I don't fear spitfires, they can spoil shots a little better but at least I feel like they pay dearly in terms of energy so I can line up another one soon after. Yak1b is another story. 

 

As far as the roll rate, they only said "decreased" at medium and high speeds. If it's twice as slow that'd be quite an extreme change I figure... 

 

Decreased roll + Higher inertie to enter in a roll

 

Bf 109 F-2/F-4/G-2/G-4:

1. Their roll rate at various flight conditions has been corrected (decreased at medium and high speeds).

7. Flight stick load along the roll axis at medium and high flight speeds has been increased significantly.

[JG27*Kornezov]

When comparing the data that Han posted about the IL2:Box Spitfire Mk.Vb to the data produced by the RAE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_V_Level_Speed_RAE.jpg), the Spitfire in game is roughly 25 km/h faster on the deck at 16lbs compared to the real life example tested by the RAE.

 

I wrote about the exact same thing. However according to Gavrick this is not so.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29943-game-version-2011-discussion-spitfire-mkvb-blazing-steppe-ne/page-10

 

He prefers to extrapolate data. However in the same thread Holtzauge showed his extrapolation data that were disagreeing completely with the manual.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29943-game-version-2011-discussion-spitfire-mkvb-blazing-steppe-ne/page-11

 

The good thing is that all agree about the available technical data. I think there was a simple technical mistake that can be easily corrected.

However people who have some science background know that extrapolations are messy business.

 

The data we have has some error of 5%. When you try to extrapolate the data you increase the error. The further away you extrapolate the bigger the error is. For those who do not understand the term error is not an error in the computation, it is a difference between the real life and the mathematical world. We in this simulator we are within a mathematical world created by the flight model engine.

 

In this same example Gavrick cited methodology is worse, preferring to extrapolate data to direct measurements. The direct measurement is in the jpg file and everybody can see it.

So in  the other data the deck speed is missing and there is a need to extrapolate the data for example from 8000 feet towards the deck. The room for error is much much bigger than 5 %.

Edited July 12, 2017 by JG27_Kornezov

[JtD]

Look guys, there is no "correct speed" from historical data. There's a valid speed range, with a mean value, a standard deviation and a confidence range. If we take Spitfire V performance in game, it's in the upper range of all data historically available.

 

Gavrick's methodology is not wrong, extrapolating data is an absolutely proper way to go. For instance the data you keep posting, has been calculated and extrapolated. Just by much more simple 1941 means than the advanced year 2017 computer solved algorithms.

[Holtzauge]

Look guys, there is no "correct speed" from historical data. There's a valid speed range, with a mean value, a standard deviation and a confidence range. If we take Spitfire V performance in game, it's in the upper range of all data historically available.

 

Gavrick's methodology is not wrong, extrapolating data is an absolutely proper way to go. For instance the data you keep posting, has been calculated and extrapolated. Just by much more simple 1941 means than the advanced year 2017 computer solved algorithms.

 

Sure, there is a historical spread. It’s a point I often make as well but you can also do quite good estimates to see if things add up and which numbers make the most sense and in this case I think the 535 Km/h at +16 boost seems a bit optimistic:

 

I know you are familiar with this formula JtD:

 

V1**3 / Hp1=v2**3 / Hp2

 

In my experience this formula is pretty accurate and applying this on my C++ calculation and the RAE figures I referred to earlier this adds up. At least if we assume that the Merlin 45 puts out 1079 hp at +9 boost and 1380 hp at +16 boost at SL.

 

But if we use the developer SL top speed figures of 480 Km/h at +9 and 535 Km/h at +16:

 

Assuming that a Merlin 45 puts out 1079 hp at +9 boost at SL as a base::

 

480**3/1079=535**3/hp

 

This gives the power required at SL for 535 Km/h to 1494 hp…….

 

And I'm not saying that Gavrick's or the other developers method is wrong: On the contrary:  I'm just giving my input on which numbers I think they should use as a base for the Spitfire's performance, which, I may add is an outstanding piece of simulation and currently my favourite ride.

[JtD]

Where do you take the 1080hp for 9lb from? The M45 chart I have shows 1010 at sea level. Is 1080 a static figure?

No direct figure for 16lb, let alone 9lb and 16lb in a single source, but cross referencing other sources I end up at 1350hp-1400hp at 16lb at sea level, agreeing with your 1380hp, if it is a rammed figure.

 

The 1010-1380 relation also agrees well with the 910@9 - 1250@16 I see in the M46 chart.

 

So starting with 480@1010, I'd need 1398 for 535, which is plausible.

[Holtzauge]

Where do you take the 1080hp for 9lb from? The M45 chart I have shows 1010 at sea level. Is 1080 a static figure?

No direct figure for 16lb, let alone 9lb and 16lb in a single source, but cross referencing other sources I end up at 1350hp-1400hp at 16lb at sea level, agreeing with your 1380hp, if it is a rammed figure.

 

The 1010-1380 relation also agrees well with the 910@9 - 1250@16 I see in the M46 chart.

 

So starting with 480@1010, I'd need 1398 for 535, which is plausible.

 

No, I use the unrammed hp as a base in my calculations. So unrammed I have 1079 and 1380 hp. I don't have a single source as well and that is of course a problem. But of course, if you instead plug in 1010 and 1398 in the formula then it becomes plausible but then the speed difference that you get is 55 Km/h between the +9 and + 16 boost speeds and I think that is stretching it and I don't think that fits very well in the RAE chart I linked earlier which nicely fits both +9 and +16 speed into the same chart with no cross referencing needed. But of course, as you say it is plausible with 535 Km/h, but I would like to add optimistic to that.

[Finkeren]

Totally unscientific and purely personal experience: I flew a couple hours on the DED normal server tonight, which is about as bad furball-mania as you can get and where the Spit should have a field day.

 

Lots of Spits in the air, about as many as there were Yaks. I flew the Fw 190A5. Result was 8 kills and I was shot down 3 times + 1 mid air collision. 

 

The Spits did not feel like a threat at all. They were so slow, it was like they were standing still in the air, and people were yanking them about making absolutely sure, that they had no energy left after just a few seconds and you'd be left on top.

 

The Yaks on the other hand stuck to you like glue once they got the upper hand, and apart from my first death (which was done by a Spit that bounced me right after take off) Yaks (and a single MiG-3) were the ones that killed or damaged me. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Finkeren

[Farky]

From Merlin 45/46/55 manual issued by Rolls Royce -

 

 

 

[MiloMorai]

If my memory serves... +9lbs was more common in the early days of the Spitfire V (in 1941). They progressively improved performance through the run of the Mark V to help it stay at least somewhat competitive. A majority of RAF squadrons were still flying the Mark V on D-Day and only some had upgraded to the Mark IX by that point.

Order of Battle for 2TAF june 1944

 

No. 83 (Composite) Group (AVM Harry Broadhurst)

• No. 15 Sector
  • 122 Wing
    • 19 Squadron, Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 15Jul) QV
    • 65 Squadron (S/L Westersra) Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 15Jul) YT
    • 122 Squadron, Mustang III (Funtington, B.7 25Jun, B.12 16Jul) MT
  • 125 Wing
    • 132 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) FF
    • 453 (Australian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) FU
    • 602 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.11 25Jun, B.19 13Aug) LO
  • 129 Wing
    • 184 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.10 27Jun, B.5 16Jul) BR
• No. 17 (Canadian) Sector (G/C Bill MacBrien)
  • 126 (Canadian) Wing (W/C George Keefer)
    • 401 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Lorne Cameron) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) YO
    • 411 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Graham Robertson) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) DB
    • 412 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Shepherd) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.4 18Jun, B.18 8Aug) VZ
  • 127 (Canadian) Wing (W/C Lloyd Chadburn)
    • 403 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Bob Buckham) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) KH
    • 416 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Fred Green) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) DN
    • 421 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wally Conrad) Spitfire IX (Tangmere, B.2 16Jun) AU
  • 144 (Canadian) Wing (W/C Johnny Johnson)
    • 441 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Danny Browne) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.11 15Jul) 9G
    • 442 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Dal Russel) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.4 15Jul) Y2
    • 443 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wally McLeod) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.3 15Jun, B.2 15Jul)) 2I
• No. 22 Sector (G/C Paul Davoud)
  • 121 Wing (W/C Bob Davidson)
    • 174 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.5 17Jun, B.2 19Jun, B.5 24Jun) XP
    • 175 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.3 20Jun, B.5 24Jun) HH
    • 245 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Holmsley, B.5 27Jun) MR
  • 124 Wing (W/C Basil Carroll)
    • 181 Squadron (S/L Frank Jensen) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20 June) EL
    • 182 Squadron (S/L Pugh) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20Jun, Holmesley 22Jun, B.6 3Jul) XM
    • 247 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.6 20Jun, Hurn 23Jun, B.6 27Jun) ZY
  • 143 (RCAF) Wing (W/C M T Judd)
    • 438 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Fred Grant) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) F3
    • 439 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Hugh Norsworthy) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) 5V
    • 440 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L W Pentland) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.9 27Jun) I8
• 39 Recce Wing (W/C Bunt Waddell)
  • • 168 Squadron, Spitfire XIV (Odiham, B.8 1Jul)
    • 400 (Canadian) Squadron, Mosquito XVII (Odiham, B.8 1Jul, B.21 15Jul) SP
    • 414 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Smoky Stover) Spitfire XIV (Odiham, B.21 15Jul) RU
    • 430 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L F Chester) Spitfire XIV (Odiham) G9
• Spotting Wing
  • • 652 Squadron, Auster
    • 653 Squadron, Auster
    • 658 Squadron, Auster
    • 659 Squadron, Auster (East Grinstead)
    • 662 Squadron (Maj Alec Hill) Auster
• 83 Group Reserve Squadrons in ADGB
  • • 64 Squadron, Spitfire V SH
    • 234 Squadron, Spitfire V AZ
    • 303 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire V RF
    • 345 (French) Squadron, Spitfire Vb (Shoreham) 2Y
    • 350 (Belgian) Squadron, Spitfire Vb (Selsey) MN
    • 402 (Canadian) Squadron(S/L Jeff Northcott) Spitfire V (Digby) AE
    • 501 Squadron, Spitfire V SD
    • 611 Squadron, Spitfire V FY

No. 84 Group (AVM L Brown)

• No.18 Sector
  • 131 (Polish) Wing
    • 302 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) WX
    • 308 (Polish) Squadron (Maj W Retinger) Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) ZF
    • 317 (Polish) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 4Aug) JH
  • 132 (Norwegian) Wing (W/C Rolf Berg)
    • 127 Squadron (S/L Bradley) Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 22Aug) 9N
    • 66 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 20Aug) LZ
    • 331 (Norwegian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, b.16 30Aug) FN
    • 332 (Norwegian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Ford, B.16 20Aug) AH
  • 134 (Czech) Wing (W/C Tomas Vybiril)
    • 310 (Czech) Squadron (S/L Hrbacec) Spitfire Vc (Apuldram, B.10 28Jun) NN
    • 312 (Czech) Squadron (S/L Liscutin) Spitfire IX (Apuldram, B.10 28Jun) DU
  • No.19 Sector
    • 222 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.5 26Jul) ZD
    • 349 (Belgian) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.17 26Aug) GE
    • 485 (New Zealand) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Coolham, B.17 31Aug) OU
  • 145 (French) Wing
    • 340 (French) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Merston, B.8 19Aug) GW
    • 341 (French) Squadron, Spitfire IX (Merston, B.8 19Aug) NL
  • 133 (Polish) Wing
    • 129 Squadron, Mustang III (Coolham ) DV
    • 306 (Polish) Squadron, Mustang III (Coolham, ) UZ
    • 315 (Polish) Squadron (S/L Harbaczewski) Mustang III (Coolham) PK
• No.20 Sector
  • 123 Wing (W/C Desmond Scott)
    • 198 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.5 8Jul, B.10 11Jul, B.7 19Jul) TP
    • 609 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Thorney Island, B.10 1Jul, B.5 9Jul, B.7 19Jul) PR
  • 136 Wing (W/C Ed Reyno)
    • 164 Squadron (S/L Ian Waddy) Typhoon Ib (Thorney, Funtington 18Jun, Hurn 21Jun, B.8 17Jul, B.7 20Jul) FJ
    • 183 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Thorney, Funtington, 18Jun, Hurn 23Jun, Eastchurch 15Jul, B.7 25Jul) HF
    • 263 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, Eastchurch 23Jul, B.3 6Aug) HE
  • 146 Wing
    • 193 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 20Jul) DP
    • 197 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 17Jul) OV
    • 257 Squadron (S/L Walter Ahrens) Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 15Jul) FM
    • 266 Squadron, Typhoon Ib (Hurn, B.3 17Jul) ZH
• 35 Recce Wing
  • • 2 Squadron, Mustang I (?, B.10 29Jul, B.4 19Aug) O1
    • 4 Squadron, Spitfire IX (?, B.10 29Jul, B.4 19Aug) TV
    • 268 Squadron, Mustang I (?, B.10 27Jul, B.4 13Aug)
• 84 Group Reserve Squadrons in ADGB
  • • 149 Wing
      • 33 Squadron, Spitfire IX (North Weald) 5R
      • 74 Squadron, Spitfire IX (North Weald) 4D
    • 233 Wing
      • 80 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) W2
      • 229 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) 9R
      • 274 Squadron (S/L Stocky Edwards) Spitfire IX (Hornchurch) JJ

No. 85 Group (night fighter and misc.) (AVM C Hamilton)

• • 141 Wing
    • 264 Squadron, Mosquito XIII (A.8 ?, B.6 11Aug) PS
    • 322 (Dutch) Squadron (S/L K Kuhlmann) Spitfire IX (Selsey) 3W
    • 410 (Canadian) Squadron, Mosquito VI RA
  • 142 Wing
    • 124 Squadron, Spitfire V ON
  • 147 Wing
    • 488 (New Zealand) Squadron, Mosquito VI ME
    • 604 Squadron(W/C Desmond Hughes) Mosquito XIII (A.15 24Jul, A.8 6Aug) NG
  • 148 Wing
    • 29 Squadron, Mosquito VI RO
    • 91 Squadron, Spitfire V DL
    • 409 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Wendy Reid) Mosquito XIII (B.17 25Aug) KP
  • 150 Wing
    • 3 Squadron, Tempest V (Newchurch) ) JF
    • 56 Squadron, Spitfire IX (Newchurch) US
    • 486 (New Zealand) Squadron (S/L Iremonger) Tempest V (Newchurch) SA
• Reserves from ADGB
  • • 406 (Canadian) Squadron, Beaufighter (Winkleigh, Colerne) HU
    • 418 (Canadian) Squadron (S/L Russ Bannock) MosquitoXIII (Hurn) TH

No. 2 Group from Bomber Command (AVM B Embry)

• • 137 Wing
    • 88 Squadron (S/L Lyle) Boston III RH
    • 226 Squadron (S/L Betts) Mitchell II MQ
    • 342 (Lorraine) Squadron (S/L Campbell) Boston III OA
  • 138 Wing
    • 107 Squadron, Mosquito VI OM
    • 305 (Polish) Squadron, Mosquito VI SM
    • 613 Squadron, Mosquito VI SY
  • 139 Wing
    • 98 Squadron, Mitchell II VO
    • 180 Squadron, Mitchell II EV
    • 320 (Dutch) Squadron (S/L H Burgerhout) Mitchell II NO
  • 140 Wing
    • 21 Squadron, Mosquito VI YH
    • 464 (Australian) Squadron, Mosquito VI UP
    • 487 (New Zealand) Squadron, Mosquito VI SB

Headquarters Group

• • 34 Wing
    • 16 Squadron, Spitfire IX PR (A.12 4Aug) EG
    • 69 Squadron, Wellington XIII WI
    • 140 Squadron, Mosquito ZW
  • 3 Naval Wing
    • 808 Squadron, Seafire III
    • 885 Squadron, Seafire III
    • 886 Squadron, Seafire III
    • 897 Squadron, Seafire III
  • Aerial Spotters
    • 26 Squadron, Spitfire V XC
    • 63 SQuadron, Spitfire V NE

Edited July 13, 2017 by MiloMorai

[unreasonable]

Further to MiloMorai's post, you might want to look at this, where someone has collated and charted the RAF Fighter Command strengths throughout the whole war - with charts - which the author thinks includes all RAF units based in the UK.  I am not 100% sure about that since Fighter Command and 2TAF were distinct entities: but the overall picture is the same:  by Overlord, Spitfire V were very much in the minority.  Overseas might have been a different matter.

 

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/401908-Fighter-Command-Orbat-Forums

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Based on personal experience so far, I would place the HS cannon somewhere between the MG 151/20 and the VYa 23 in terms of damage, which seems about right, given how large and heavy the HS shells are.

I would say spit cannons are between 20mm Russian and 23mm Russian.

[JtD]

No, I use the unrammed hp as a base in my calculations. So unrammed I have 1079 and 1380 hp.

Well, then let's go with the figures Farky kindly provided. Please note that at 2850rpm the Merlin produces more power than at 3000rpm, in the range of 10hp. In that case it's 1020 against 1360, which means 480 becomes 528. You'd need a 4% higher prop efficiency at 16lb than you have at 9lb to achieve 535. Advance ratio is better, but I doubt it's worth 4%. So, basically, we're back to optimistic.

 

For what it's worth, when I worked on the Spitfire flight model, it ended up with 470-515. You can consider this FM as my opinion on the matter of representative Spitfire V performance.

Edited July 13, 2017 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

OK, thanks for the info. Looking at Farky's chart I agree about the power being less at 3000 than 2850 rpm so my figure of 1079 hp seems to be a bit on the optimistic side as well then. Using this new info would increase the delta in my +9 to +16 boost estimate so your 470/515 figure seems spot on to me. Anyway, the Me-109's in BoX are also on optimistic side on some performance aspects so maybe it's only fair if the Spitfire gets some leeway as well.

 

@Farky: Thanks a lot for the Merlin chart! Have been looking for this type of data for ages. Will update the C++ model based on this.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Holtzauge