Any rumours of a Griffon?

[Tomsk]

This is all just my opinions, and what I believe would make a fun matchup. I simply think the Griffons outclass the axis by too much, that's all.

Well I’d very happily fight them in a 190 D9. If you have an energy advantage you can BnZ them, if not you can dive away providing you have a bit of altitude. A Spit can’t follow a 190 in a power dive (it’d be a mistake to try), and as I recall the Dora is actually faster on the deck than a Spit XIV. I think I’d actually consider a P-51D a greater threat in many ways ...

 

Also it’d be fun to fly the Mk XIV in SP and coop

[Finkeren]

So it’s not a fun match-up, when it’s the GERMANS being outclassed?

[Warpig]

So it’s not a fun match-up, when it’s the GERMANS being outclassed?

When it holds every card (speed. climb, turn, acceleration, high alt and low alt performance). Yea.. Not so fun in my opinion. At least give the opponent something to work with.

 

And I do like to fly both sides. So there!

Edited January 11, 2018 by Warpig

[Panthera]

The Spitfire Mk.XIV was amongst the top 3 best prop jobs at the end of the war, that is for sure, might even be the best. However pitting it up against an Me262 flown by an experienced pilot and it really doesn't stand a chance, the performance difference is just too great. To be more specific the Me262 pilot can engage and disengage at will, and as long as he doesn't let speed drop below ~400-450 km/h he will also accelerate faster than any propjob. The latter not being a tall order considering the jet loses speed much slower in turns than a propjob. Crucially this great disparity in performance allows the Me262 in practice to make hit'n'run passes at a very high frequency, which is not a good thing for the poor Spitfire pilot when each time entails 30mm mine shells being thrown at you at a rate of 2200 rpm (550x4).

 

In essence all the Me262 pilot has to avoid is a prolonged turn fight and getting below 450 km/h, if he can manage that (should be easy) then he's got an overwhelming advantage. 

 

It's a good thing Hitler twarted any quick adoption of the Schwalbe into the interceptor role and instead pressed for it to mainly be a high speed fighter bomber, otherwise I can well imagine the A-bomb being the end of the war in europe.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Panthera

[Panthera]

When it holds every card (speed. climb, turn, acceleration, high alt and low alt performance). Yea.. Not so fun in my opinion. At least give the opponent something to work with.

 

The Spitfire XIV didn't hold every card though, the Germans did possess faster propjobs (esp. at low to medium alts), ones that could also climb faster and also types with better high speed agility.  The Mk.XIV however was so strong in every performance category that combined it was undeniably an extremely potent aircraft, and IMO probably the overall best defensive propeller driven fighter of the war that entered mass production.

 

And also importantly, it was probably the sexiest looking fighter of the war, esp. once it got the bubble canopy   :

 

 

So yeah I say: Please for the love of God let us have it in IL2!! 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Panthera

[Finkeren]

When it holds every card (speed. climb, turn, acceleration, high alt and low alt performance). Yea.. Not so fun in my opinion. At least give the opponent something to work with.

 

And I do like to fly both sides. So there!

Not accusing anyone of anything, I’m just kidding around

 

But honestly, what you just said describes more or less exactly the situation back in early access BoS, when it was just LaGG-3s vs. Bf 109F4 with no engine time limits, and that was pretty fun back then.

[Warpig]

The Spitfire XIV didn't hold every card though, the Germans did possess faster propjobs (esp. at low to medium alts), ones that could also climb faster and also types with better high speed agility.  The Mk.XIV however was so strong in every performance category that combined it was undeniably an extremely potent aircraft, and IMO probably the overall best defensive propeller driven fighter of the war that entered mass production.

 

And also importantly, it was probably the sexiest looking fighter of the war, esp. once it got the bubble canopy   :

 

 

So yeah I say: Please for the love of God let us have it in IL2!! 

 

Okay, that is a sexy picture. You can stop with the prop porn now!

Not accusing anyone of anything, I’m just kidding around

 

But honestly, what you just said describes more or less exactly the situation back in early access BoS, when it was just LaGG-3s vs. Bf 109F4 with no engine time limits, and that was pretty fun back then.

All good.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The more I read this thread and the more I see pictures of Spitfire XIV's.... the more I want one. If they offer it, it'll be an immediate buy for sure. I mean this will all probably happen in 2019 anyways but whatever

Edited January 11, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[Panthera]

 

Ya boi try to hit as an experienced Me262 "player" a turning guy while you are going +700 kph. With these slow ass 30mm as another handicap, good luck dude!

Oh I remember back in the day of IL2-46, I used to have field day with any Allied opposition when'ever I managed to get on a server that allowed the Me262. It was an absolute slaughter, which probably why most servers, even late 44 to 1945 ones, didn't allow them.

 

Alsp deflection shooting with a 505 m/s gun aint so bad when your closing speed on average around 250+ km/h. Thats quite abit of extra velocity. But you'll see soon enough

Edited January 11, 2018 by Panthera

[DSR_A-24]

The Spitfire XIV didn't hold every card though, the Germans did possess faster propjobs (esp. at low to medium alts), ones that could also climb faster and also types with better high speed agility.  The Mk.XIV however was so strong in every performance category that combined it was undeniably an extremely potent aircraft, and IMO probably the overall best defensive propeller driven fighter of the war that entered mass production.

 

And also importantly, it was probably the sexiest looking fighter of the war, esp. once it got the bubble canopy   :

 

So yeah I say: Please for the love of God let us have it in IL2!! 

What climbs faster than a Griffon Spitfire?

 

I never really understood the hype for the Griffon spitfires.

 

Its just like the K4, more power engine, but with the same shortcomings of the earlier Bf-109s.

 

The Fw-190D9 will have the same advantages over the Spitfire Mk 14 just like the Anton had over the Merlin Spitfire.

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

What do you mean squeeze in? I thought each expansion had 8 main and 2 collector planes, or at least BoS and BoM seem to. For Kuban these are the G-6 and the 5FN, or were they not planned from the start? For Bodenplatte the collector planes are already announced as the P-38 and 190D. The only special/additional planes I can think of are the Yak-1b and the Ju-52. So to squeeze a Griffon in they would have to, at some point, make another collector plane not tied to a specific expansion. Is this what you mean?

I think you're confused here, the collector planes for Kuban are the Spitfire Mk.VВ and Hs-129 B-2. The G-6 and La-5FN are standalone collecter planes the same way Ju-52 and Yak-1b are, they just happen to be releasing at the same time as Kuban.

[=X51=VC_]

What I was never sure of was whether clipping the wings actually did significantly improve the roll rate. That was clearly the idea, but some sources say that in practice it actually didn't make any real difference *shrugs*. I think the full wing Spitfires look better, but I'll take the clipped wings if they roll better!

 

Either way I think a Spit XIV would make an excellent additional collectors plane, clipped wings or otherwise

They were also a low altitude modification, trading higher wing loading for lower drag, so a clipped should be slightly faster down low (where it matters in game) and retain energy a bit better. Not sure about roll rate IRL, my only experience is from another Sim but it was hilarious there, Fw could not keep up. A couple of times in a mid-high speed range I got a wing overload failure just from full aileron. Not saying that's realistic, but that's my biased expectation for what it's worth. I'm sure in IL2 it will be researched to the last rivet and if the above turns out not true... well I still want it!

[Dakpilot]

But G6 and La5FN were typical used fighter planes over Kuban in 1943 while Yak1b was not really used over stalingrad until end of 1942. 

 

G6 availability

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31649-bok-and-bf-109-g-6/?p=520276

 

La-5FN was available only during July

 

Whilst the main and more famous air battles at Kuban were May-June the campaign will also cover Taman and bridgehead withdrawal where G6 and FN were present

 

http://soviethammer.blogspot.co.za/2015/03/the-kuban-air-battles.html

 

*edit* we seem to drifting far off Griffon topic 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Edited January 11, 2018 by Dakpilot

[ShamrockOneFive]

But G6 and La5FN were typical used fighter planes over Kuban in 1943 while Yak1b was not really used over stalingrad until end of 1942. 

 

The Yak-1B Series 127 is a Kuban timeline aircraft.

[Finkeren]

But G6 and La5FN were typical used fighter planes over Kuban in 1943 while Yak1b was not really used over stalingrad until end of 1942. 

 

Absolutely true, and the s. 127 (which was more refined than the Yak-1b that was combat tested at Stalingrad) won't be in the Stalingrad career mode - only the Kuban one.

[Herne]

What climbs faster than a Griffon Spitfire?

 

I never really understood the hype for the Griffon spitfires.

 

Its just like the K4, more power engine, but with the same shortcomings of the earlier Bf-109s.

 

The Fw-190D9 will have the same advantages over the Spitfire Mk 14 just like the Anton had over the Merlin Spitfire.

 

this report is from 1944 with +18 boost but the conclusion was it had superior performance at all altitudes to the FW 190 in everything except dive. I don't know if late war changes in boost even'd the odds for the 190, but, the spit also was cleared for 21 ibs boost sometime after this report.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

[Tomsk]

this report is from 1944 with +18 boost but the conclusion was it had superior performance at all altitudes to the FW 190 in everything except dive. I don't know if late war changes in boost even'd the odds for the 190, but, the spit also was cleared for 21 ibs boost sometime after this report.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

 

So the Spit Mk XIV is an incredibly powerful airplane, there's no doubt. However, as I said I'll happily fight them in a FW 190 D9 Dora, as for me the 190 holds the trump cards.

 

People tend to overestimate the value of performance, and underestimate the value of energy. A Spit cannot out run a Dora which has a substantial energy advantage, nor can the Spit out climb it. The Spit cannot easily dive away from a Dora, because the Dora is just as fast, dives better and handles much better at high speed. So if the Dora has an energy advantage, it can make slashing attacks at the Spit until either the Spit is shot down, or that energy difference is drained. In a 2 v 1 situation this gets only more true, and a lone Spit XIV that is facing 2 Doras that have higher energy is in serious trouble. 

 

If a Spit has an energy advantage over a Dora, the Dora can dive away. The Spit can't dive with a Dora, nor can it tollerate high speeds well. There are lots of ways to exploit the mistake if a Spit follows a dive: high speed scissors, structural failure or exploit the difference in energy retention at high speed. If the worst comes to the worst, the Dora is (slightly) faster on the deck, and retains excess speed better, so it can generally extend away after a high speed dive. A lone Dora facing 2 Spit XIVs that have higher energy, can (and should) dive away.

 

So I'll quite happily fight Spit XIVs in a FW 190 D9, because I have a good option for every situation. Which is not to say any of this is easy, the Spit XIV is a fearsome opponent, however, personally I consider the FW 190 D9 to be the superior plane.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Tomsk

[Max_Damage]

D9 and la7 vs a griffon 14 will be like a5 and la5fn against our spit V. For the most part of it but of course with an added bonus for said spitfire at 6+ km.

 

Spit lacks energy simply because the large wings are difficult to pull through air and it costs some power when compared to other fighters. It has climb rate, turning and 7+ km maneuvering instead.

 

And of course the rolling performance plays a large role here. Rolling planes are harder to shoot down and their attacks are also harder to avoid.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Max_Damage

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's a good airplane but its excellent performance (and a few foibles) shouldn't be a reason not to potentially add it to the hangar.

[Herne]

 

 

Spit lacks energy simply because the large wings are difficult to pull through air and it costs some power when compared to other fighters. It has climb rate, turning and 7+ km maneuvering instead.

 

 

 

I think this is a misconception, spitfire wings are very slim compared to most of it's peers, and it's designer after all designed racer's of the period. It was built for speed.

 

My understanding is that the performance of spitfire vs 109 oscillated throughout the war giving advantage first to one then the other, also is it fair to say that the elliptical tips would cause lower vortex induced drag ?  

[=X51=VC_]

Having wings which taper to a point reduces wingtip vortex formation. The elliptical shape was believed optimal but ultimately unnecessary. You can get 90%+ of the benefit with a straight taper and slightly round tip without the huge penalty in construction complexity of full elliptical wings.

 

Indeed they were designed for speed. Thin section for low drag at small angle of attack but big area to quickly generate excess lift when you need it. The compromise was structural stiffness, which became a big problem at higher speeds later on.

 

The Spitfire wings are great design but eventually were replaced with stronger ones made in a simpler profile (Mk.21 and later).

Edited January 12, 2018 by VC_

[EAF19_Marsh]

Close enough in performance to the D-9 and K-4 that it will probably come down to pilots and tactical situation (as it usually does). It is a lovely looking aircraft, though, so I would be very happy if it were offered.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

The Spit IX would apparently have been ~ 17 km/h faster with a curved windshield, was only tested though and was never mass produced. The normal one was quite steeply slopes and caused a separation bubble in the area ahead of the windshield apparently, which causes quite a bit of drag. The radiators were also caused a fair bit of drag due to boundary layer separation at certain points as well.

 

As for the wing, % thickness seems to be a little less than most but it was also longer than most by the looks of it. As a gross simplification most drag for slim objects comes from friction anyway, and wings make up a large part of the drag on aircraft. In this case the big surface area doesn’t help. Late war German aircraft had quite poor surface/production quality though which also didn’t make their aircraft any faster. Apparently at some point it was generally considered a waste of effort to keep improving engine performance of the 605 because the fuselage and wings (being built by slaves and probably with less than optimal material) were so bad and caused so much drag that it wouldn’t help.

[Max_Damage]

I think this is a misconception, spitfire wings are very slim compared to most of it's peers, and it's designer after all designed racer's of the period. It was built for speed.

 

My understanding is that the performance of spitfire vs 109 oscillated throughout the war giving advantage first to one then the other, also is it fair to say that the elliptical tips would cause lower vortex induced drag ?  

slimness of wings only hels it dive better faster at high Mach numbers but they dont produce less drag

 

It is by design a plane which is better suited to climbs and turns but not speedy flight which is why spit IX with ~1700 horsepower does ~535 at deck while a G6 with ~1700 does 550-560.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Max_Damage

[von-Luck]

Large wing area != Faster. More area == more drag and more drag means lower top speed. a similar plane with higher wing loading and comparable power/weight will typically be faster. For an extreme example look at the F-104 Starfighter. Those stubby little wings are a design feature of the "go fast" approach of the plane.

 

 

That said I have no doubt that considerable efforts were made on the spit to reduce as much drag as possible in an effort to improve speed. But it would be a mistake to say the wings were designed purely for speed - those beautiful wings were an effort to maximize area then minimize drag.

 

von Luck

Edited January 12, 2018 by von-Luck

[=X51=VC_]

Yes, but relative to contemporaries (e.g. Hurricane) the thinness of the Spitfire wing was an attempt to prioritise speed as well as agility within the bounds of what they could do at the time. I don't know the exact proportions of form drag, skin friction and induced drag in the total in these designs, but I would think a large thin wing is a better compromise than a smaller thick wing if you want low wing loading and low drag. It should have lower induced drag for a start, possibly offsetting the increased skin friction.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

World War II Fighter Aerodynamics

[Herne]

World War II Fighter Aerodynamics

 

what is table one telling us ? what is cdswet ?

[von-Luck]

Yes, but relative to contemporaries (e.g. Hurricane) the thinness of the Spitfire wing was an attempt to prioritise speed as well as agility within the bounds of what they could do at the time. I don't know the exact proportions of form drag, skin friction and induced drag in the total in these designs, but I would think a large thin wing is a better compromise than a smaller thick wing if you want low wing loading and low drag. It should have lower induced drag for a start, possibly offsetting the increased skin friction.

The A6M Zero was also designed with high speed in mind. That said I doubt you would consider it a fast plane or even say it's wing was designed with speed as it's first priority. What I have clearly failed to impress upon you is that speed was important but agility wasn't overly impaired to achieve the speed. The wing was not designed with speed as the top priority if that had been the case you would have seen a smaller wing

 

von Luck

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

Cd is coefficient of drag, swet is wetted area. If i had to guess f is frontal area.

 

Table 1 is a comparison of these values for the 3 aircraft.

[Max_Damage]

Well in fact it is designed for speed but at super high altitudes when a smaller wing wouldnt provide enough lift and you d need to increase AoA to stay afloat. Like at 8+ km? When there is less air, you can apply more wing to it and acheive good results :D

 

These griffons are what.. 740 kmh at 8-9km? They can not only go fast but they can also maneuver not too badly up there unlike the focke wulf.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Max_Damage

[von-Luck]

Several aircraft delved into that and further modifications made to the spitfire's wing to accomplish high altitude flying. Your point rings true but I would still argue speed was not the first priority of the wing design on the spitfire:)

 

Compared to other contemporaries the spit's wing is a wonderful blend of lift and efficiency.

 

von Luck

[Max_Damage]

The first priority was probably climb rate? because it is an interceptor.

[Panthera]

What climbs faster than a Griffon Spitfire?

 

I never really understood the hype for the Griffon spitfires.

 

Its just like the K4, more power engine, but with the same shortcomings of the earlier Bf-109s.

 

The Fw-190D9 will have the same advantages over the Spitfire Mk 14 just like the Anton had over the Merlin Spitfire.

 

The K-4 could outclimb it and outspeed it at low altitude, whilst the Dora was generally faster and as well as more agile at speed.

 

But again, the Mk.XIV was so good in all of the performance categories that it left all the other propjobs without any true advantage over it. The only propjob I would consider truly equal overall would be the Ta152.

[Venturi]

The K-4 could outclimb it and outspeed it at low altitude, whilst the Dora was generally faster and as well as more agile at speed.

 

But again, the Mk.XIV was so good in all of the performance categories that it left all the other propjobs without any true advantage over it. The only propjob I would consider truly equal overall would be the Ta152.

 

44 Ta152H-0/V, and 25 Ta152H-1 were produced, most between Nov 44 and Feb 45. Most of these were pre-production quality aircraft.

Source: Peter Rodeike, Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug, p.438. ISBN 3923457448.

 

 

"During the fall of 1944, Tank converted an existing Fw 190 prototype airframe (Werk-Nummer or serial number 0040) into the Ta 152H prototype. This aircraft and several other Ta 152 prototypes crashed early in the test program, due largely to intense pressure from the RLM to field production airplanes. Critical components suffered quality-control problems. Superchargers failed, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system gave trouble, the landing gear failed to properly retract, and oil temperature gauges gave false readings. These problems, combined with Allied bombing attacks, which disrupted transportation and caused severe fuel shortages, slowed the whole program. Test pilots conducted just 31 hours of flight tests before full production started in November. By the end of January 1945 this figure had not climbed above 50 hours. This was not nearly enough time to refine subsystems and debug major components but production forged ahead."                           SOURCE: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/focke-wulf-ta-152-h-0r11

 

Along with a 5g limit at design weight (2x steel main wing spars due to Al shortage), the Ta152-H hardly sounds like a good idea to me. The Ta152-C is again, not much different than the late variants of the Fw190-D and there is debate anything more than a handful of examples were ever produced anyways.

 

A far cry from an aircraft like the Spitfire XIV from a historical perspective.

[Panthera]

44 Ta152H-0/V, and 25 Ta152H-1 were produced, most between Nov 44 and Feb 45. Most of these were pre-production quality aircraft.

Source: Peter Rodeike, Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug, p.438. ISBN 3923457448.

 

 

 

Along with a 5g limit at design weight (2x steel main wing spars due to Al shortage), the Ta152-H hardly sounds like a good idea to me. The Ta152-C is again, not much different than the late variants of the Fw190-D and there is debate anything more than a handful of examples were ever produced anyways.

 

A far cry from an aircraft like the Spitfire XIV from a historical perspective.

 

 

A steel main spar is stronger than an aluminium main spar, however there's a cost in weight. Also the design load limit is far from the ultimate load limit which is 1.5 times higher at 7.5 G's, which I'd wager most WW2 pilots couldn't withstand. For example the Spitfire's load limit factor was 5.33 G's, with the ultimate load limit being 8 G's. (The wings were rather thin)

 

That aside the Ta-152H enjoyed superlative performance at all altitudes, reaching 580 km/h at SL and 750 km/h at altitude at 1.92 ata, or 595 km/h and 765 km/h at 2.03 ata. In addition to this those high AR wings generated an enormous amount of lift, allowing the aircraft to take off in less 300 m (24% shorter than the D9) and outturn most opponents it would ever meet. In terms of climb rate only limited original performance data remains, however 10 km was attained in 10.1 min ar 1.92 ata, which is very close to the Spitfire XIV.

 

In short both aircraft were very closely matched, however due to the circumstances of the war only one ever went into mass production, which is why I rate the Spitfire XIV as probably the best propjob fighter of the war. 

Edited January 13, 2018 by Panthera

[=X51=VC_]

The A6M Zero was also designed with high speed in mind. That said I doubt you would consider it a fast plane or even say it's wing was designed with speed as it's first priority. What I have clearly failed to impress upon you is that speed was important but agility wasn't overly impaired to achieve the speed. The wing was not designed with speed as the top priority if that had been the case you would have seen a smaller wing

 

von Luck

 

You haven't failed to impress that one me, I was just making a point about priority order. For the Hurricane for example the wing design says to me the designers' priorities were Internal space > agility > strength > speed. For the Spitfire this looks more like Agility > speed > internal space > strength. Of course agility was top but speed still takes higher priority than other aspects in the Spitfire, which it did not in other contemporaries. That's all I was trying to say

[PainGod85]

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if 1C added a Spit Mk. XIV, XVIII or even 21 at some point.

 

Well, probably not the 21. The question is, what are you going to give the Axis in return, the Spatz? Or maybe the Fw 190D-13? Ta 152?

...well, probably the 152H, at least that one saw service...but other than that?

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

but other than that?

Horten IX

[PainGod85]

Horten IX

 

How 'bout no?

 

I am this close to quoting Jason Sartin in his review of FATAL from a few years ago.