Jump to content
HBPencil

Spitfire IX discussion

Recommended Posts

I dont know, the one in DCS outclimbs Spitfire by a fairly decent margin.

 

 

I have them in DCS but not flown. According to archive tests which I do not have in front of me, the K4 has better climb across the board but the IX at 18lbs and lower altitude should be not so far behind as to be totally outclassed, and certainly not so much that engagement factors do not play a part.

 

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

 

 

I suspect the increased power may have mean the K-4 climbed at a steeper angle than the Spit, but the figures running around suggest not much difference at lower levels.

 

 

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 keep posting this but no one seems to read it :)

 

A 1944 Mk IX is a later model series 1 air-frame (fixed tail wheel, earlier wing spar, other small differences to the series II / VIII and XIV air-frame) but with Merlin 60 series running 130 octane and 18lb boost. gyro sight is likely, clipped wings possible in E or C configuration, bubble canopy less likely. The XVIs, essentially last of the IXs, more likely to have the clipped E wing and bubble canopy as well as late tail.

 

We have no idea what we will get, but the 'IX' in theory opens up F and LF options, full and clipped C and E wings as well as bubble canopy for a 'late' [read XVI] version.

Edited by EAF19_Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html interesting notes on armament.

 

Quotes: As is known, the latter combination (2x20mm + 2x.50) prevailed to became widespread standard on Merlin-powered Spitfires during late 1944 and 1945.

 

During winter 1944-1945, LF Mk. XVIE replaced the LF Mk. IX as the most common fighter type in the 2nd TAF on the Continent.*

 

​* I think this is contradicted somewhere else on the forum.

 

Also, a comment at the bottom of the page , Credit to Edgar Brooks,:  

Papers, in the National Archive, at Kew, give a few answers to the queries. The XVI, as a Mark no., did not exist until August, 1944, when it was realised that separate listings, for spares, etc., were needed, and the Air Ministry finally unbent, and acceded to the requests for a new Mark. Since other Marks had been introduced into production, in the meantime, it explains the wide gulf between the numbers. It’s also the reason why it’s impossible to find mention of the XVI any earlier; L.F.IX was the usual designation, whatever the engine.
All low-back aircraft had to have the “E” armament, since the planned fuel tanks, behind the pilot, entailed the relocation of the compressed-air bottles, which went into the no.3 Browning’s compartment; at the same time the extra fuel meant longer flight times, so three oxygen bottles became necessary, two of which went into the no.4 gun compartments.
Another reason for the delay in the introduction of the XVI/low-back XIV was the reluctance of the Air Ministry to replace 4 x .303″ with 2 x .5″; it was found that, from the rear, the .5″ had no extra penetrative power over the .303″, and the general (lack of) shooting ability, by the average pilot, meant that the hosepipe effect of four guns, in a deflection shot, had a better chance of disabling the enemy pilot.
The arrival of the gyro gunsight changed all that, since the pilots’ aim improved beyond all measure, so the A.M. finally went for the “E” wing. There was a further delay to the low-backs, though, since the electrical boxes, for the G.G.S., had to be installed before the fuel tanks, otherwise the tanks would need removal, for the sight to go in. All of this is the reason why the low-backs did not see service until 1945.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Google says its late IX variant. I dont really like clipped wings but other than that ... I'd love to fly such thing.

 

 

Because, essentially, it is... :)

 

 

Papers, in the National Archive, at Kew, give a few answers to the queries. The XVI, as a Mark no., did not exist until August, 1944, when it was realised that separate listings, for spares, etc., were needed, and the Air Ministry finally unbent, and acceded to the requests for a new Mark. Since other Marks had been introduced into production, in the meantime, it explains the wide gulf between the numbers. It’s also the reason why it’s impossible to find mention of the XVI any earlier; L.F.IX was the usual designation, whatever the engine.

 

 

 

Because, essentially, they are they same thing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have found:

Spitfire-Feuilherade-02.jpg

 

Google says its late IX variant. I dont really like clipped wings but other than that ... I'd love to fly such thing. 

 

I see an E type wing and a bubble canopy.. I LIKE WHAT I SEE  :biggrin:  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the bubble canopy Spit be slower than the razorback one, just as was the case with the Mustang?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have found:

Spitfire-Feuilherade-02.jpg

 

Google says its late IX variant. I dont really like clipped wings but other than that ... I'd love to fly such thing. 

That's my favorite spitfire. The spit made even more beautiful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would the bubble canopy Spit be slower than the razorback one, just as was the case with the Mustang?

 

Higher drag, some loss of yaw stability. Maybe worth a few mph but not much in it. The version pictured as the larger tail which would counter the yaw issue.

 

But you can see from the pic that it is basically a IX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spitfire-Mk-LFXVIE-CRS-01.jpg

 I posted in the "favorite ww2 planes thread" 

 

phwoarrrrr  :o:  :good:   and in regards to the canopy slowing down speed a little, I wouldn't mine good sacrifice for better vision  :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Dora and 109-G10 / 109-K4 are on the table, then so should be the XIV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Dora and 109-G10 / 109-K4 are on the table, then so should be the XIV.

This is my view also. Speaking from experiences in DCS, the Spitfire IX is a lovely plane and probably a great match for the 190 A8 or the 109 G6. But I mostly flew the Dora in DCS and myself and the people I flew with didn’t consider the Spit IX to be much of a threat unless you were low and slow (always a mistake in the Dora). The Spit is simply too slow, if one gets behind you dive straight for the deck at full WEP and providing you had some altitude to play with it’ll never catch you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Dora and 109-G10 / 109-K4 are on the table, then so should be the XIV.

They have to draw a line somewhere though.

The later Spits would take more time - so it's not an "if/then" equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope that they wont be doing a 25 lbs spitfire because war thunder has already taught us how much cancer that is and its unrealistic for a wartime spit 9.

 

+18 LBS speed at deck 535, speed at ~7km 650 kmh, climbs at around 20 m/s


If the Dora and 109-G10 / 109-K4 are on the table, then so should be the XIV.

Mustang is ok against these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope that they wont be doing a 25 lbs spitfire because war thunder has already taught us how much cancer that is and its unrealistic for a wartime spit 9.

 

+18 LBS speed at deck 535, speed at ~7km 650 kmh, climbs at around 20 m/s

 

Mustang is ok against these.

Let's not used the term "cancer" or WarThunder for that matter to talk about a serious simulation.

 

Early 1945 Spitfire IX models did get 150 octane fuel and did operate at +25lbs of boost. The only question is if the devs will do both +18lbs and +25lbs or one or the other and it will all come down to how much development time they have.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not used the term "cancer" or WarThunder for that matter to talk about a serious simulation.

 

Early 1945 Spitfire IX models did get 150 octane fuel and did operate at +25lbs of boost. The only question is if the devs will do both +18lbs and +25lbs or one or the other and it will all come down to how much development time they have.

 

Let it be known I promise I won't moan if they have to take a few extra weeks in development to add all the goodies for the spit...  :biggrin:  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still would of liked to have seen the Spitfire MK XIV serving with the 2nd Tactical Air Force ,

seeing that Bodenplatte was getting the top German fighters of that time and that the 2nd TAF had the XIV's.

 

The 2nd TAF lost a lot of aircraft during Bodenplatte including MK XIV's.

 

The the RCAF No 402 Sqdn part of the 126th WING put up 2 man Spitfire MK XIV flights.

 

The 126th WING still shot down 24 German aircraft.

 

Wing Commander Peter Brothers, O/C Culmhead Wing in 1944–1945 and a Battle of Britain veteran;

 

 

''It was truly an impressive machine, being able to climb almost vertically – it gave many Luftwaffe pilots the shock of their lives when, having thought they had bounced you from a superior height, they were astonished to find the Mk XIV climbing up to tackle them head-on, throttle wide open!''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were more IX's there and although I agree its unfortunate there is no XIV I don't think they would ever change a plane list once announced.. The least they can do is make the IX as historically accurately good as she can be in return.  :friends:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not used the term "cancer" or WarThunder for that matter to talk about a serious simulation.

 

Early 1945 Spitfire IX models did get 150 octane fuel and did operate at +25lbs of boost. The only question is if the devs will do both +18lbs and +25lbs or one or the other and it will all come down to how much development time they have.

 

To be honest they have to, its a quick win as the data for all those boost levels are available and documented. 

 

Having the spit IX be flexible from a 1943 model to a 1945 model by using modification options should not be That hard to do at least the options like the guns section and boost/fuel options.

 

Now to really go ahead of the competition like DCS then having the clipped wing, new tail or LF/HF options are frequently what i am asked about when talking about IL2 to my DCS buddies who still didn't switch over. Yeah its more work to add those options to the spit "And imo all other aircrafts as well" it does reduce the game between Milsim and study sim. 

 

Add to that the option of creating an early 1942 and 1943 scenarios as the line up gets flushed out. The spit 9 is possibly the only aircraft to be able to operate in all those options with limited work needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very good point - by careful use of mods we end up with an airframe capable of being used in settings from 1943 to the end of the war.

 

It doesn't matter so much at the moment when we only have one Western European theatre, sure (although the VVS were given some mk IXs, right? I think I read that on here once).

But thinking strategically, a '43 Spitfire IX could fit a wide range of theatres. Rhubarb ground strikes and rodeo fighter sweeps over the Channel in a mid-war setting if the next European release is an earlier planeset, the Italian theatre, a bit of work to add a D wing and cameras and we're close to having a photorecon mk XI, and we're also not far off having a Seafire LF mk III, which I've been hoping to get for a good while.

 

I'd still love to see a mk XIV as well and hopefully it'll make its way into BoBo at some point as it really needs to be included.

Then I can start spamming the forums about wanting a Seafire XV...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we get the earlier rounded rudder, at least as an option. The bigger, pointy tail just ruins the look of the Spit IX in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have found:

Spitfire-Feuilherade-02.jpg

 

Google says its late IX variant. I dont really like clipped wings but other than that ... I'd love to fly such thing. 

 

AX is 1 Squadron SAAF - this is a post war picture - they only had them from 1947.

 

Google he say: "The cut-down rear fuselage and bubble canopy, trialled on a Spitfire Mk VIII, was incorporated into very late production Mk IXs. With the cut down fuselage the lower forward fuselage tank capacity was increased to 47 gallons, while the rear fuel tanks were decreased to a capacity of 66 gallons.[38] These were the rarest of the Mk IXs and many of them featured the "clipped" wings. The great majority of these saw postwar service with the SAAF, both in South Africa and in deployment in Korea during the 1950s."

 

I expect us to get a more representative post D-Day Mk IX.  OTOH an extra Spitfire should be included as a Premium product: if we all buy it, maybe we will end up getting them all..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early 1945 Spitfire IX models did get 150 octane fuel and did operate at +25lbs of boost. The only question is if the devs will do both +18lbs and +25lbs or one or the other and it will all come down to how much development time they have.

 

If sticking strictly to a Bodenplatte timeframe then +18lbs is correct. 2 TAF didn't start to convert to +25lbs until early Jan '45 after Bodenplatte was over. Was only the UK-based ADGB squadrons that had it before that as far as I know. But would be great if we got both and mission designers could implement as they see fit in some post-Bodenplatte scenarios. There would've been some 2 TAF Spit IXs operating with +25lbs not too long after Bodenplatte as you pointed out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

was incorporated into very late production Mk IXs

 

Which, with the Packard Merlin, were call XVIs - hence if we get a '44 IX we may also get E Wing, clipped tips, bubble canopy etc. :cool:

 

There would've been some 2 TAF Spit IXs operating with +25lbs not too long after Bodenplatte as you pointed out.

 

 

I hope they do the sensible thing and keep everything December '44 standard across the board; I would rather have a justifiable 18lb boost IX with a few options than a 25lb boost aircraft totally unrepresentative of the aircraft in service.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which, with the Packard Merlin, were call XVIs - hence if we get a '44 IX we may also get E Wing, clipped tips, bubble canopy etc. :cool:

 

 

I hope they do the sensible thing and keep everything December '44 standard across the board; I would rather have a justifiable 18lb boost IX with a few options than a 25lb boost aircraft totally unrepresentative of the aircraft in service.

 

Hi Marsh,

 

Apart from trials and development unit activity, looks like the first operational Me 262 unit was formed in January 1945, but it was several weeks before it was actually operational.  This:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

By January 1945, Jagdgeschwader 7 (JG 7) had been formed as a pure jet fighter wing, although it was several weeks before it was operational. In the meantime, a bomber unit—I Gruppe, Kampfgeschwader 54 (KG 54)—had re-equipped with the Me 262 A-2a fighter-bomber for use in a ground-attack role. However, the unit lost 12 jets in action in two weeks for minimal returns.[citation needed]Jagdverband 44 (JV 44) was another Me 262 fighter unit, of squadron (staffel) size given the low numbers of available personnel, formed in February 1945 by Lieutenant General Adolf Galland, who had recently been dismissed as Inspector of Fighters. Galland was able to draw into the unit many of the most experienced and decorated Luftwaffe fighter pilots from other units grounded by lack of fuel.[46]

During March, Me 262 fighter units were able, for the first time, to mount large-scale attacks on Allied bomber formations. On 18 March 1945, 37 Me 262s of JG 7 intercepted a force of 1,221 bombers and 632 escorting fighters. They shot down 12 bombers and one fighter for the loss of three Me 262s. Although a 4:1 ratio was exactly what the Luftwaffe would have needed to make an impact on the war, the absolute scale of their success was minor, as it represented only 1% of the attacking force.

Considering the above, I would say that the Me 262 is really a 1945 aircraft set.  As I understand it, Operation Bodenplatte (Baseplate), was launched on 1 January 1945.

 

I believe you will find that the Spitfire Mk LFIX with the Merlin 66 @ 18lbs boost started front line service in March 1943.  In March 1944 his aircraft was given full service approval to use 150 Octane fuel and 25lbs boost; May 44 first squadrons operational with 25lbs boost and 150 Octane fuel.  So, if we get a Spitfire Mk IX with 18lbs boost, in performance terms, and performance is what matters, it is an early 1943 aircraft on the technological time line; well before Bodenplatte.

 

​I think it is worth noting that the Spitfire XIV entered service with 610 Squadron in December 1943 and was a leap forward in the evolution of the Spitfire. Jeffrey Quill flew the first production aircraft, RB140 in October 1943.  By July 44 it was running on 21 lbs boost and later 25 lbs boost.

The Mk XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

​Happy landings,

 

​56RAF_Talisman

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marsh,

 

Apart from trials and development unit activity, looks like the first operational Me 262 unit was formed in January 1945, but it was several weeks before it was actually operational.

Eh, no (and this is the problem with sourcing Wikipedia). Kommando Nowotny and KG51 were flying 262s before 1945.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even a bit of flying by Erprobungskommando 262 before that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, no (and this is the problem with sourcing Wikipedia). Kommando Nowotny and KG51 were flying 262s before 1945.

He even got shot down and killed flying the Me262 operational on Nov. 8th 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marsh,

 

I believe you will find that the Spitfire Mk LFIX with the Merlin 66 @ 18lbs boost started front line service in March 1943.  In March 1944 his aircraft was given full service approval to use 150 Octane fuel and 25lbs boost; May 44 first squadrons operational with 25lbs boost and 150 Octane fuel.  So, if we get a Spitfire Mk IX with 18lbs boost, in performance terms, and performance is what matters, it is an early 1943 aircraft on the technological time line; well before Bodenplatte.

 

​I think it is worth noting that the Spitfire XIV entered service with 610 Squadron in December 1943 and was a leap forward in the evolution of the Spitfire. Jeffrey Quill flew the first production aircraft, RB140 in October 1943.  By July 44 it was running on 21 lbs boost and later 25 lbs boost.

The Mk XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

​Happy landings,

 

​56RAF_Talisman

 

This is a highly selective appraisal of the situation regarding the operational introduction of the Mk IX LF and the Mk XIV. Please also note that Talisman is fully aware of that.

 

Mk IXLFs began apparing in service in March 1943 indeed. Few squadrons converted in 1943 - only two to be exact as of June 1943. All the rest kept flying old Mark Vs into 1944 or earlier Mark IXFs that were limited to +18 boost.

 

'Of the 47 Spitfire Squadrons available at the beginning of 1943, only 10 were equipped with the MkIX. Owing to the difficulties producing enough engines, and demands for the aircraft from other battlefronts, it remained in short supply. This situation did not markedly improve until the second half of the year. As a result, the vast majority of home Spitfire units had to soldier on with the Mk V, even though this aircraft in most respects were totally outclassed by the opposition.'
 
Source : Ian Carter - Fighter Command, Chaper 5, '1943', pg 92.

 

The vast majority of the Spitfire Squadrons thus kept their Mark Vs. In fact it was not until March 1944 the IXLF (still at +18) began re-arming frontline squadrons of Fighter Command / ADGB in numbers.

 

The only IXLFs at +25 lbs were two trial units, Nos. 1 and 165 that operated on +25 lbs to gain experience with 150 grade. They saw little to no action and they reverted to +18 / 130 grade in the autumn.

 

No IX LFs of the 2nd TAF were operating on +25 lbs in 1944 or on 1st of January 1945 for that matter. The only boost at the time used was +18, the same as by the two "operational", in fact, operational trials Squadrons in 1943. Deliveries of the 150 grade fuel were planned to begin on the 1st of January, but Bodenplatte came up and there were more pressing needs, such as clearing away burnt out wrecks from the runways. No. 126 Wing is in fact the only one to be Spitfire IXLF Wing known to have used the fuel, and - presumably - the higher boost but only from late February/ March 1945. They experienced some engine failures shorty afterwards, particularly at take off and loosing some aircraft to that. They too have reverted to 130 grade and lower boost in April 1945.

 

As far as XIVs go. The 1943 service entry date is a product of imagination as well. A mere 18 were produced in that year in total, and a handful went to No 610 Sqn. In fact deliveries were so slow that the Sqn did not possess a full complement of aircraft (20) by late March / early April, when the unit was finally declared operationally ready. The first operational loss, Spitfire XIV serial no. RB187 , did not occur until the end of April (29) when the aircraft of 91 Sq failed to return from patrol. For allegedly being "used main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe", there were precious few of them as shown below.

 

As of 18th May 1944, Spitfires with Sqn's:
 
MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22

 

MK XIV 61.

 

The Mark XIVs however, did run on +25 lbs on trials in 1944. The relevant excerpt from the British report on this as follows:

 

"The engine was then modified to give +25 lb./sq.in. boost and one flight was made. Only two level speed measurements were obtained, as the engine became suddenly rough after about two minutes of the high boost on each level. Subsequent inspection showed that a blow back had occurred, damaging the air intake. The reduction gear was also found to be cracked and no further tests could be made with this engine."

 

They quickly gave up the idea and never returned to it again. Its also open to question wheter +21 lbs boost was ever used in combat against the Luftwaffe. Its operational use was largely confined to the XIV Squadrons employed in anti V-1 operations, after which they reverted to normal +18 lbs. This was the only boost used on New Years Eve when the Luftwaffe attacked the airfields in the Low Countries.

 

On the positive side of things, for an aircraft being "operational" and the "main air superiority fighter", they shot down a lone Ju 188 over Brussels in Aug 19, 1944. This was the type's first victory against manned Luftwaffe aircraft (keep in mind that the V-1 was also a Luftwaffe project).

 

By the end of May 1944, there had been less that 70 Spitfire Mk XIV produced, and a mere 341 were produced by the end of 1944, about 1/3 of these going to Squadrons, equipping 6 in total. The rest were produced in 1945 with production reaching sensible levels (100+ a month) from March 1945 only. Some were produced after VE day.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I love the IX an XIV should also make an appearance, shortly after the release of Bp, if for no other reason than it brings a late war Spit, contemporary to the K4 and D9, rather than a mid war G6 contempory airframe. Mission play and SP with the IX is fine as the opposing sides are matched accordingly, in MP however you will get an almost exclusive preponderance of the best Late war German fighters, because they're there and well, why wouldn't you, against an aircraft coming to the close of it's useful best in class status. That's not to say the IX is rubbish, by any means, but in the rough and tumble of MP the Allies should have a similar standard and choice of late war Spit to oppose the late war German aircraft.

Edited by HagarTheHorrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey kurf,

Got that as raw data for the mk14.
Numbers are "assigned to squadron" (does not mean actually operationnal)
38652778556_a51636a13d_b.jpg

Edited by JV69badatflyski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sticking strictly to a Bodenplatte timeframe then +18lbs is correct. 2 TAF didn't start to convert to +25lbs until early Jan '45 after Bodenplatte was over. Was only the UK-based ADGB squadrons that had it before that as far as I know. But would be great if we got both and mission designers could implement as they see fit in some post-Bodenplatte scenarios. There would've been some 2 TAF Spit IXs operating with +25lbs not too long after Bodenplatte as you pointed out.

 

Thanks for clarifying (and others too) on the exact dates. Though I see Battle of Bodenplatte as being specific to January 1st on the face of things... I'm anticipating that the team will have a bit of a wider time period in mind especially seeing as Jason wants to do a "green" map. If they decide to do spring then a +25lb boost Spitfire IX makes absolute sense. If Bodenplatte is the end date then maybe not as much. Depends on what the timing is for the historical part of this and I'll happy fly whatever makes the most sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's be real for a second, if there is 25lbs it would likely be a modification. We're not going to get a IX that is not available with the 'normal' ratings.

 

For the setting we're going I see no reason for it not being an upgrade. What were there, like 30 LaGGs with 37mm armament? We have that and I'm sure a whole load of other mods that make for historically rare machines. So I don't really think there's an argument there.

 

We're getting a hyper late spit, is there the sheer amount of possible modifications that 25lbs would be so far down the list that it shouldn't reasonably be featured?

 

That's the real question that should be answered.

Edited by Windmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're getting a hyper late spit, is there the sheer amount of possible modifications that 25lbs would be so far down the list that it shouldn't reasonably be featured?

 

That's the real question that should be answered.

We aren't getting a "hyper Spit", indeed it'll be bog-standard if it's running +18lb (which is what I feel we should get as standard). Also, +25lb is arguably the single biggest possible 'mod' affecting raw performance below 20k that the IX can get, although clipped wings would be a contender as well although with more of an emphasis on agility rather than speed/climb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the setting we're going I see no reason for it not being an upgrade. What were there, like 30 LaGGs with 37mm armament? We have that and I'm sure a whole load of other mods that make for historically rare machines. So I don't really think there's an argument there.

 

 

When anyone says an aircraft shouldn't get a modification that the aircraft commonly had (even if it is a little out of timescale) all you have to do is reference the Macchi and its gunpods  :biggrin:  :salute:

All I know is that i will be severely disappointed if they make this spit plain Jane... 

Edited by Bullets
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, massive prejudice aside, we have by Autumn 1944:

 

- No Vs in Continental Europe (the numbers given by Kurfurst for May are rather disingenuous, as they cover all Spitfire in service rather than Spitfires used in the major front-line squadrons operating over the South-East)

- IX as the main operational Spitfire type, probably running 130 octane fuel and 18lb boost

- IX being slowly replaced by XVIs at end of year (though this may well have had no impact on actual performance), some of which were fitted with clipped E-Wings to reinforce their role as LF aircraft

- IXs running 25 lb boost operational against V1s in UK summer of 1944 but no evidence that these were operational over the continent before 1945 (I do not think that clearing wreckage was a major impediment to 150 octane introduction, or the Luftwaffe would have had no time to do anything given their situation at the time)

- XIVs, which we are not getting yet, remain the minority though it equipped several squadrons. Given that the D-9 and K-4 that we are getting were not exactly the majority by end of December (200-odd D-9s operational?), the XIV is relevant but would not represent the major type at the time (that it shot down a Junkers in August is note really indicative of what it was doing that Winter in Belgium and Eastern France)

 

Thus sensibly:

- Spitfire IX running 18lb boost

- Option of full or clipped wing

- Possible E- or C-wing

- Possible early or late fin

- Possible bubble canopy

- 25lb boost really not a priority, but if the team have time for it then fine (online people will always select the 'best', making it fairly unrepresentative)

 

Given that JG 51 had F-2s and -4s until Autumn '42 (See Bergstrom), JG54 were running mixed A-4s, A-5s and A-6s at the time of Kursk (see Hannig) and JG 11 were still running late E models in 1942 (see Knocke), the disparity between 'theoretically available' and 'actually used' can be large, but it is not confined to the RAF.

 

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...