Jump to content
HBPencil

Spitfire IX discussion

Recommended Posts

During the Q&A Jason stated that either the MkIX or the G-14 would be the first of the BoBP aircraft to be released as they require the least work, so I thought I'd start a thread to discuss what we might be getting with the Spitfire IX and to share thoughts on load-out options and assorted minutiae, either as info fodder or for debate amongst Spit fans. I should point out that I'm using 1 January '45 as the baseline for if some things are viable for the IX, meaning if those 'things' had been introduced into service etc., but I'm also using a month or so of leeway on either side as well. Also, my knowledge of Spit details runs from dead-sure to being somewhat iffy and these are just my views and opinions so don't take anything as gospel, it's a complex subject anyway.

Chances are we'll be getting the LF.IX (the most common type with the 2nd TAF at the time) and...

- Likely we'll get the E wing (2x20mm cannon and 2x.50 mg) although the standard C wing (2x20mm and 4x.303 mg) is plausible. I suspect we'll get the standard wingtips rather than the clipped wings.

- Both the pointed and old style rudders were about but I'd go the pointed type.

- Merlin 66 (obviously) but not so sure about getting 150 octane fuel for +25lb boost. The link below shows the 2nd TAF Spitfires converting to 150oct in January '45 (scroll about 2/3 down the page). Even if we don't get it the Spit will do just fine on +18lb and could, perhaps, mean the work for the engine performance of the P-51D gets done at the same time as it was powered by the Packard version of the Merlin 66 and the 9th AF didn't use 150oct.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

Just a note for those who may not be aware but while the Merlin 66 had lower full throttle heights than the Merlin 61/63 (Spit F.IX) and the Merlin 70 (Spit HF.IX), it was not a pure low altitude engine like you would find on the LF.V (e.g. the MkV with a Merlin 50M and temperate air intake had a full throttle height of 5,900ft, whereas for the LF.IX (Merlin 66) it was 10,500ft and 21,000ft). So the LF prefix is a bit of a misnomer.

- I don't know what was more common but both gyro and standard reflector gunsights were about. Maybe the gyro could be an option. Apart from the sight it would also mean a new throttle lever as some sight controls were on the throttle, an early (first?) version of HOTAS. I have no idea what it'd take to model/programme the usage of a gyro sight in-game but after listening to Jason's Q&A I suspect they'll run with the same sight as in the Vb although... if they did develop the MkII gyro sight it would save them the doing the work for the American fighters if they went down that path?

- A bomb load of a 500lb under the fuselage and/or 2x250lb under the wings. The 250lbers can be carried with a centerline droptank.

- 30, 45 and 90gal slipper (drop) tanks although the first two seemed to have been the most common. Not the most reliable type of drop tank but so far as I'm aware drop tank issues are modeled in-game? Given map limits it's probably not much of an issue anyway?

- I'm not sure about the automatic prop pitch control (not to be confused with the standard constant-speed unit) in which the rpm can be governed by the throttle. Definitely about but I don't know to what extent. Again, I feel they'll run with the same CS system as the Vb which is just fine.

- A raft of detail changes over the Vb: internal armored windscreen, Aero-Vee air filter, hemispherical mirror etc. etc. etc.

- Underwing beer kegs! Just for s%^&s'n'giggles :P

 

Spitfire_beer2.jpg

 

- Highly unlikely and not suitable for the time frame anyway but very late in the war one squadron performed strikes with a single RP under each wing and a 500lb bomb on the centerline. Probably not very effective? The Brits also tested (not in combat) mounting a triple bazooka set-up under each wing, like what the US used on their single seaters.

- No bubble-top canopy as production of those started in February '45. If an option changes to the FM would be needed.

- No rear fuselage fuel tanks. SFAIK conversion/production started in January '45 (predominantly, maybe exclusively, on the MkXVI anyway) and I think they weren't cleared for operations until quite some time later? Pointless anyway, what with map limits and drop tanks, and that's just as well as with those rear tanks full the plane was a pig to fly. Clipped wings, metal elevators and four spoke wheels mandatory on aircraft with the rear fuselage fuel tanks apparently.

- I reckon she'll handle pretty much like the Vb (with some small differences here and there) but with the advantages of being way faster and having twice the cannon ammo.

So, what do you guys think?

Cheers,

HB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

- I reckon she'll handle pretty much like the Vb (with some small differences here and there) but with the advantages of being way faster and having twice the cannon ammo. So, what do you guys think?

 

Well it's the Spit that could fight the Fw190's or more or less equal terms and in some respects surpassed it. I remember seeing an interview with Johnny Johnson, many years ago where he stated that the introduction of the Mk IX was the first time that the RAF could finally tackle and defeat the "Butcher" Bird with any regularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what Jason said in the Q&A, I'm under the impression that the spit won't have very radical changes from the current model. I doubt it will come with clipped wings or 4x20mm guns.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a shame if we didn't get a clipped wing option.    I may be making this up, (I'll try and find out) but I think clipped wings may have been more rather than less typical in late '44-'45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know if someone asked Jason what the reasoning was behind choosing the models they did? If they chose the IX because it was more common then it'll probably have a representative configuration. If they chose the IX because of simplicity of modelling then it will share commonality with the Vb where possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you just stated made me sad  :( If that ends up being the case all that is stopping us from getting an awesome spit is a "bit of extra work" whats the point if its practically going to be the same as the MkVb but with a different engine.. Not getting a XIV or XVI was bad enough but making the the IX as bad as it can be when we will be going against flippin K4's and D9's in it (Yes the reds have the tempest but that doesn't mean the other non American plane needs to be worse?  :dry:   

 

Gyro gunsight

25lb boost

E type wing

Pointed Tail

And if it was historically correct automatic prop pitch control..

 

Come on guys don't kill the spit  :dash:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i satated above was just my interpretation.

 

He said the spit will be one of the first ones to come out in early access together with one of the 109s because the models are already built.

 

It doesnt mean they can't clip the wings or add different guns and a gyro, but im skeptical given the timeframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you just stated made me sad  :( If that ends up being the case all that is stopping us from getting an awesome spit is a "bit of extra work" whats the point if its practically going to be the same as the MkVb but with a different engine.. Not getting a XIV or XVI was bad enough but making the the IX as bad as it can be when we will be going against flippin K4's and D9's in it (Yes the reds have the tempest but that doesn't mean the other non American plane needs to be worse?  :dry:   

 

Gyro gunsight

25lb boost

E type wing

Pointed Tail

And if it was historically correct automatic prop pitch control..

 

Come on guys don't kill the spit  :dash:

 

Remember as well as the K4s and D9s there are G14s and A8s, the planset should be repesentative of the time of Op Bodenplatte. The only thing I don't want is a DCS style situation where on one side (Axis or Allies) you have entirely 1945 configured planes with best case scenario equipment v entirely worst case scenario planes on the other side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the restrictions for the modification tab is, might it be possible to have the clipped wings as a modification, or would it be to radical a flight model change.... I mean we have different engine types, and some of the mods do affect performance, but I don't know if the change of wings would be outside what could be applied by that system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason said the Spit we are getting will be first thanks to that the model of the V. thats about it no more details. I asked about if it will get boost options or not and he said it will be clear closer down the line.

 

IMO all of those upgrades like 2x50cals vs 4x303s, Boost of 25lb or 18lb and 150 oct fuel, clipped wings and tail should all be under modifications. 

 

This allows for the best versatility in time frames for mission makers, and for the price of the aircraft since its all under the same model, mortification within the same model should be standard for each aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it's easier to go from V to IX that doesn't mean that they can't do the model justice. I do hope for both C and E type wings with clipped as an option for both too. And also the ground attack 500lb and 250lb options. Also the +25lb option would be appropriate at least as an option.

 

The broad chord rudder would be very appropriate for a Spitfire at this point but not the bubble canopy.

 

Hoping they can do all of these things for the Spitfire IX. Perhaps especially since it's an "easier" job coming from the Mark V.

 

Some late IX models got the Mark II GGS lead computing gunsight if I remember right. That would be interesting... as would the K-14 on the Mustang.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt the ix have 6 exhausts, the v having 3 makes the current model unusable for the ix. Interior armoured glass the v having exterior. The model is close but there are a lot of differences between the two marks. The 3D model i think would be the easiest thing to change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt the ix have 6 exhausts, the v having 3 makes the current model unusable for the ix. Interior armoured glass the v having exterior. The model is close but there are a lot of differences between the two marks. The 3D model i think would be the easiest thing to change

Exhaust changes and a different shape to the nose actually. There is a base airframe that remains unchanged but some key and distinct differences too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spitfire IX had also different horizontal stabilizer and elevator. There is a number of changes that has to be made to adapt V to IX. I thought that if we are going Bodenplate than it could be at least XVI (which is rarely appearing in any flightsim). But if one is going by the simplest adaptation than I'd not expect anything more from Spitfire IX than the one in DCS gives and it's pretty much outperformed by K-4 / D-9. One positive thing is the fact that Spitfire IX should be more stable because of different CoG location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 (Yes the reds have the tempest but that doesn't mean the other non American plane needs to be worse?  :dry:   

 

Tempest is not american? 

 

Gotta admit i'd love to see the clipped wing spit in this sim. 

Edited by [5SFG]Sunde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMO all of those upgrades like 2x50cals vs 4x303s, Boost of 25lb or 18lb and 150 oct fuel, clipped wings and tail should all be under modifications. 

 

 

This sounds like a great idea  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think round wings are better, because then the line-up of the Allies will include an aircraft that is good at turnfighting.

 

And have clipped as a modification yes  :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going with the IX is the right choice; the most common Spitfire during Bodenplatte (see Frankyboy's post), the XIV is different enough from either the Vb or IX and not just because it has a Griffon so it'd be a lot more work, and the XVI is just a IX with a Packard built version of the Merlin 66 so it doesn't bring anything new to the table.

 

I'd like to see the clipped wings as an option but it affects more than just the roll rate and given Jason's constant reiteration in the Q&A that they're resource and time limited I'm just not sure I can see them spending the time to create two separate FMs.

 

I doubt it will come with clipped wings or 4x20mm guns.

I agree about the wing tips but to clarify, in case you thought I was referring to 4x20mm when I said "twice the cannon ammo" I was instead referring to the cannons being fed by a 120rnd belt in the C and E wings rather than the 60rnd drum for the B.

 

Not getting a XIV or XVI was bad enough but making the the IX as bad as it can be

 

Come on guys don't kill the spit  :dash:

It's not that bad mate. We don't actually know what she'll be getting so there's no point worrying about it, she won't be "as bad as it can be" (a 1942 version would be the least well performing) and anyway it won't "kill" the Spitfire, she'll be plenty competitive regardless of what spec she is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason said the Spit we are getting will be first thanks to that the model of the V. thats about it no more details. I asked about if it will get boost options or not and he said it will be clear closer down the line.

 

IMO all of those upgrades like 2x50cals vs 4x303s, Boost of 25lb or 18lb and 150 oct fuel, clipped wings and tail should all be under modifications. 

 

This allows for the best versatility in time frames for mission makers, and for the price of the aircraft since its all under the same model, mortification within the same model should be standard for each aircraft. 

The clipped wings might not be there because they  are a bit more complex to simulate the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A XVI is a IX with a different engine supplier!!!!

 

There is no significant difference; putting them side by side you would be hard-pressed to tell them apart except that both later IXs and the XVIs tended towards the higher boost settings, E-wings and possibly (though not always) a bubble canopy and later fin. The XVIs also had a rear fuselage tank like the VIIIs, but that is of limited importance over the Ardennes.

 

Otherwise, there is no point getting panties twisted over this. A XIV is a different beast, but it was out-numbered by IXs and XVIs (they used both types in the same squadron) by a significant degree.

 

2nd TAF Vol 3 has a lot about relative numbers, performance and usage if you want this in depth, but that we are getting a IX does not mean a 1942-43 model. The 130 octane Spits used mostly in 2nd TAF would be running likely 18lb boost. When 150 octane was officially adopted on the continent in Jan '45, this may have been increased to 25lb boost as it was for ADGB Spits used against V1s. Note that the latter - Mk IXs - were running very high boost; this is not simply the preserve of the XVIs.

 

So a late IX is fine from a performance perspective; maybe a XVI comes as an option with different wing and canopy; FM should be pretty similar.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have a clipped wing, 25lb boost Spitfire, we might as well not have the 109s.  They're not going to be very effective against that Spit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have a clipped wing, 25lb boost Spitfire, we might as well not have the 109s.  They're not going to be very effective against that Spit.

 

Yeah what a shame the blues cant have it one sided for once :lol:  :P and was the lag was effective against the 109's in the first releases?  :lol:  :lol:  (If the lufty wasn't a noob :mellow: )   

 

I agree i don't think its too much to ask for these "mods"/features for the spit as shamrockfive said "especially since it's an "easier" job coming from the Mark V"

Edited by Bullets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a big Spitfire buff recently (all hail the Mig-3), but I do appreciate the machine. Not sure if historically accurate, but if we could get the clipped wings version or as a mod, that would really make me happy. But then there is the Dora and that thing climbs like a monster so yeah, I'd be pretty torn. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah what a shame the blues cant have it one sided for once :lol:  :P and was the lag was effective against the 109's in the first releases?  :lol:  :lol:  (If the lufty wasn't a noob :mellow: )   

 

I agree i don't think its too much to ask for these "mods"/features for the spit as shamrockfive said "especially since it's an "easier" job coming from the Mark V"

I dunno man, I think the Allies are going to have an advantage in BoBP regardless.  Not a huge one (not like 109F vs LaGG or Yak-1), but still pretty big.

 

Tempests rule the deck, Spits out-fight anything, P-51s will at least draw even with the D-9 at altitude, if not do better.  And the D-9 is a collector, it's not a standard plane.

 

The only wildcard is the 262.  And it should be so fragile, so dependent on long take-offs and landings, and above all dependent on mission designers including it in maps, that I think it's impact will be seriously mitigated.  Also, as much fun as we make of War Thunder, have you tried it in simulator battles there?  Landing hits with Mk 108s at 850kph is like trying to hit squirrels with a paintball gun while racing down the highway.

Edited by thebusdriver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Landing hits with Mk 108s at 850kph is like trying to hit squirrels with a paintball gun while racing down the highway.

 

Hitting is not really the hard part, the problem is when you do hit and it is just 'sparkles' like we used to say  :lol:  :lol:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno man, I think the Allies are going to have an advantage in BoBP regardless.  Not a huge one (not like 109F vs LaGG or Yak-1), but still pretty big.

 

Tempests rule the deck, Spits out-fight anything, P-51s will at least draw even with the D-9 at altitude, if not do better.  And the D-9 is a collector, it's not a standard plane.

 

The only wildcard is the 262.  And it should be so fragile, so dependent on long take-offs and landings, and above all dependent on mission designers including it in maps, that I think it's impact will be seriously mitigated.  Also, as much fun as we make of War Thunder, have you tried it in simulator battles there?  Landing hits with Mk 108s at 850kph is like trying to hit squirrels with a paintball gun while racing down the highway.

 

If it goes as it did in IL-2: 1946, this will be one of the more "balanced" aircraft lineups. On the Battlefields1 server it was among the most popular of scenarios to run aircraft lineups with exactly what is coming in BoBP.

 

The Bf109K-4 climbs faster than almost anything and its still a decent aircraft overall. It was certainly favoured by many players. The D-9 was a bit more of a specialists aircraft so its Collector Status is ok with me but I think it will do well. Many pilots flew the FW190A-8/9 frequently over the D-9 simply because they wanted the extra firepower and were willing to trade top end performance for it. Both sides look really good here and its going to be some seriously deadly air battles.

 

Me262 is definitely a wildcard. No idea how it will do in this sim.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah what a shame the blues cant have it one sided for once :lol::P and was the lag was effective against the 109's in the first releases? :lol::lol: (If the lufty wasn't a noob :mellow: )

 

I agree i don't think its too much to ask for these "mods"/features for the spit as shamrockfive said "especially since it's an "easier" job coming from the Mark V"

People will always complain .

 

I fly for the luftwaffle ;) and i think

plane is irrelevant an exellent pilot can look good in any plane.Personally i wish for a spitfire 14.

 

In dcs the p50whiners complained for years even if at release the 109 had some unhistorical advantages that were taken away like it's normal for years after the 109 had, an innacurate fm that made it a bad turning plane,was as slow as a g10 because the devs used some late g model documentation as i recall, wings broke at 4g, in some versions the slats did't work,some versions the flaps did't work.And i don't understand how they complain about mk 151 performance in il2.The 20mm in il2 is pretty much the same as the 30mm in dcs.

Than there are the tracers.On the 109 you don't have any for 30mm cannon.

 

Writing from my phone.

Edited by IVJG4-Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If it goes as it did in IL-2: 1946, this will be one of the more "balanced" aircraft lineups. On the Battlefields1 server it was among the most popular of scenarios to run aircraft lineups with exactly what is coming in BoBP.
 

I'd be more confident if the 109s didn't have such heavy sticks in BoX.  600kph and it's already hard to pull up.  K-4 does that in level flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Bf109K-4 climbs faster than almost anything and its still a decent aircraft overall.

 

Slightly fast than a XIV, IIRC, but not by much. If we have a IX at 18lb boost the difference will not be huge but the advantage will lie with the K.

 

The 190 and Tempest climb better at higher speed, unlike the Spit and 109 which have an optimal climbing speed around / below 200 mph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd be more confident if the 109s didn't have such heavy sticks in BoX.  600kph and it's already hard to pull up.  K-4 does that in level flight.

 

 

You probably need to make sure you are trimmed properly bud. At fast speeds you want to be trimmed so that you have to push your stick quite a bit forward to keep level flight, that way it gives you a load more pitch up authority  :)  :salute:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more confident if the 109s didn't have such heavy sticks in BoX.  600kph and it's already hard to pull up.  K-4 does that in level flight.

From my readings, Bf109 late model pilots had trouble with this too. Trim configuration was important.

 

  

You probably need to make sure you are trimmed properly bud. At fast speeds you want to be trimmed so that you have to push your stick quite a bit forward to keep level flight, that way it gives you a load more pitch up authority  :)  :salute:

 

This! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly fast than a XIV, IIRC, but not by much. If we have a IX at 18lb boost the difference will not be huge but the advantage will lie with the K.

 

The 190 and Tempest climb better at higher speed, unlike the Spit and 109 which have an optimal climbing speed around / below 200 mph

It will be a huge difference. DCS Spitfire IX runs at 18 lb boost and it can only dodge 109 K-4, other then that its at 109s mercy. You need a combination of P-51s and Spitfires to really fight that air superiority back.

 

It's only reasonable fast above 20.000 ft:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163126

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably need to make sure you are trimmed properly bud. At fast speeds you want to be trimmed so that you have to push your stick quite a bit forward to keep level flight, that way it gives you a load more pitch up authority  :)  :salute:  

That's kind of making my point.  The stick is heavy enough that you have to gimmick your way around it.  This is not going to be an issue in the P-38, P-51, and Tempest.  The P-47 and Spit9 should also be fairly heavy, but we won't know until we get those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will be a huge difference.

 

 

I meant for RoC at sea level; both should deliver about 5,000 ft / min up to 10,000 ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kind of making my point.  The stick is heavy enough that you have to gimmick your way around it.  This is not going to be an issue in the P-38, P-51, and Tempest.  The P-47 and Spit9 should also be fairly heavy, but we won't know until we get those.

 

Its not a gimmick haha its making use of the design of the aircraft... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant for RoC at sea level; both should deliver about 5,000 ft / min up to 10,000 ft.

I dont know, the one in DCS outclimbs Spitfire by a fairly decent margin. Particularly as MW-50 allows engine to stay cooler and thus you can either push your engine further or maintain a low speed climb (Spitfire really needs to stay above 200-200 mph to provide sufficient cooling for any MAP rating above 12lbs). 

 

The way I see it we may get something between minimum and maximum.

Minimum variant would be a Spitfire IX pretty much resembling Vb airframe, but with newer engine, propeller, enlarged ammunition magazines and few other features.

Maximum variant which I truly wish to see would have e-wing and gyro-sight, teardrop canopy, significantly changing the way this machine looks. Possibly also clipped wings as modification ?

 

I dont feel like they have to rush this, better take time and bring something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it goes as it did in IL-2: 1946, this will be one of the more "balanced" aircraft lineups. On the Battlefields1 server it was among the most popular of scenarios to run aircraft lineups with exactly what is coming in BoBP.

 

The Bf109K-4 climbs faster than almost anything and its still a decent aircraft overall. It was certainly favoured by many players. The D-9 was a bit more of a specialists aircraft so its Collector Status is ok with me but I think it will do well. Many pilots flew the FW190A-8/9 frequently over the D-9 simply because they wanted the extra firepower and were willing to trade top end performance for it. Both sides look really good here and its going to be some seriously deadly air battles.

 

Me262 is definitely a wildcard. No idea how it will do in this sim.

 

This made me curious, so I started looking up climb rates. I saw something suggesting that the 109k4 climbs at approx 4500 ft / min at sea level.

 

but couldn't find much to confirm this and my source is in fact another game, in this case Aces high 2 which came up from the search. 

 

http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/109K4

 

For the spit ix LF I was able to find this which at least looks official :-

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543.html

 

suggesting that the MK IX LF with +18 boost was capable of around 4700 feet / min

 

It's only through playing IL2 in recent months that I've even become interested in knowing more about these warbirds and what they were capable of. I know many of you have been studying the history behind these aircraft for years, and was wondering if someone could explain why the 109 k4 would have the edge, particularly when it comes to climb

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...