Spitfire Mk.IX vs Bf109-k4

[vee333f]

so i was wondering about the disadvantages and advantages of these two aircraft. and just how well will the spit holdup? thanks.

[Rattlesnake]

Classic energy fighter versus angle fighter matchup, made more difficult for the K4 by the fact that the Spit also has pretty good weight to power ratio, good energy retention in turns, better maneuverability at high speeds as well as low in most respects, and the fact that with current DM the Spit can sometimes absorb 30mm shells with little to no loss of immediate combat effectiveness, despite the horrific damage that single 30mm hits did to the Spitfire airframe in British tests of that gun, see vids linked below.

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Ehret]

After the 3.008 patch the 20mm Hispanos aren't as good as before, too. At least I have problems in QMB shooting down planes when in 3.007 one short pass was all what needed.

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

All big boy HE shells have always been weak imo. Especially the p39's 37mm melon lobber. The new DM feels a lot better for the smaller calibers though.

[vee333f]

thanks for the replies so soon i'll look at those vids unfortunately i think that the only way the jug can beat the k-4 is either catching it off guard or outsmarting them from what i've heard

what do you guys think of the jug?

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

11 minutes ago, Ehret said:

After the 3.008 patch the 20mm Hispanos aren't as good as before, too. At least I have problems in QMB shooting down planes when in 3.007 one short pass was all what needed.

 

They are affected by the DM changes as well but they are still by far the best 20mm around.

 

On topic: Unless you are only interested in flying 1v1, i wouldn't bother all too much about matching aircraft a against aircraft b. Most of the time you won't fight on even grounds in multiplayer which changes nearly everything.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Operation_Ivy

[vee333f]

yes that is true. am just curious about the specs 

[Rattlesnake]

24 minutes ago, Ehret said:

After the 3.008 patch the 20mm Hispanos aren't as good as before, too. At least I have problems in QMB shooting down planes when in 3.007 one short pass was all what needed.

Fair enough, also not good. I'm assuming we will move back a little from the "well, ya need to just snipe the pilot in the brain stem" philosophy of damage modeling in the future. These gun packages evolved over the war to deliver lethal damage in the high speed passes which were preferred whenever possible, operated by pilots with far less flying and shooting hours than we get to rack up in these games, who were also operating under a lot of stress. Knocking out fighters caught squarely in the sights at reasonable ranges should be fairly easy.

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[CIA_Yankee_]

The Kurfurst is definitely the superior aircraft, by virtue of being about a year ahead in design. The contemporary matchup would be the Spit XIV, for example.

 

Otherwise, yes, it's energy fighter vs turn fighter, like Gustav vs Yak-1. The caveat, of course, is that energy fighter generally always has the advantage, as it can dictate the engagement. Namely, in pure fighter vs fighter scenario (including in groups), the K4 only gets into a turn engagement when it decides to do so. Otherwise it can conserve its energy and focus on slashing attacks at will.

 

Being able to outturn is useful in desperate situations, to be fair, but its the fighter who dictates the fight who is the most likely to make it home.

Edited December 13, 2018 by 71st_AH_Yankee_

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

8 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

 Fair enough, also not good. I'm assuming we move away from "well, ya need to just snipe the pilot in the brain stem" modeling in the future. These gun packages evolved over the war to deliver lethal damage in the high speed passes which were preferred whenever possible, operated by pilots with far less flying and shooting hours than we get to rack up in these games, who were also operating under a lot of stress.

 

 

That kill is clearly caused by the ammunition in the wing blowing up (which happens ingame albeit rarely)

[Rattlesnake]

9 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

That kill is clearly caused by the ammunition in the wing blowing up (which happens ingame albeit rarely)

That rarity is potentially a problem then. Hispano cannons, like most gun packages in use by late war, clearly knocked out fighter-sized targets easily on single passes. The evolution of fighters and tactics allowed nothing less.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Voyager]

1 minute ago, Rattlesnake said:

That rarity is potentially a problem then. Hispano cannons, like most gun packages in use by late war, clearly knocked out fighter-sized targets easily on single passes. The evolution of fighters and tactics for their allowed nothing less.

 

Do we, in fact know that to be the case? Guncam footage of a spectacular Jill has higher interest than footage of little happening. 

 

Do we have any battle damage studies we could look to to determine how frequently aircraft returned when damaged? 

[Warpig]

Contrary to what the Doom Sayers claim, the Spit IX will play a significant role. I imagine Mustangs will control the high alts, while the Tempests control low alts. The Spits will be there to clean up any unfortunate Germans that get caught up in a turn fight, or at low energy.

 

It won't be as one-sided as some are trying to make us believe.

[Rattlesnake]

16 minutes ago, Voyager said:

 

Do we, in fact know that to be the case? Guncam footage of a spectacular Jill has higher interest than footage of little happening. 

 

Do we have any battle damage studies we could look to to determine how frequently aircraft returned when damaged? 

The best source I know of is the British test of the 30mm on airframes. Little room for doubt about results is left by the pictures. It would be defensible to align the damage results in game with said tests, and then scale the damage from lesser guns from there.

I don't know of equally empirical tests for other gun packages, along the lines of "We gave this 190 wing a 1 second burst from 8x.50 machine guns, here's the pictures". It would be great to have something that definitive. But we can infer a lot from the gun choices that were made over the course of the war combined with what know about preferred tactics:

For instance, we know specifically that Brits were having a problem in the BoB with knocking down planes with 8x.303s, it was discussed, they moved to 2-4 cannon, and seem to have been content with that for the rest of the war.

We know that the Americans tried up to 8x.50s on the P-47 but apparently concluded 6 was enough for what they were doing (primarily anti-fighter) for the rest of the war, judging by fighter designs. Later in Korea against the rugged and fast MiG 15 6x.50s was noted as being a little tepid, even when combined with the radar-ranging gun sight.

And we know the MK 108 was designed to take down 4 engine bombers, so that should be a clue as to what it should be doing to fighters.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[vee333f]

34 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

The Kurfurst is definitely the superior aircraft, by virtue of being about a year ahead in design. The contemporary matchup would be the Spit XIV, for example.

 

Otherwise, yes, it's energy fighter vs turn fighter, like Gustav vs Yak-1. The caveat, of course, is that energy fighter generally always has the advantage, as it can dictate the engagement. Namely, in pure fighter vs fighter scenario (including in groups), the K4 only gets into a turn engagement when it decides to do so. Otherwise it can conserve its energy and focus on slashing attacks at will.

 

Being able to outturn is useful in desperate situations, to be fair, but its the fighter who dictates the fight who is the most likely to make it home.

we must remember that's it's not always the energy fighter that has the energy advantage turn fighters can use energy tactics too it seems like a lot of people think that the energy fighter always has the advantage 

sometimes the turn fighter will be higher and therefore will have the advantage at least for a bit

am not a expert though

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

I think the ix is a contender for the best fighter in game as it can currently absorb a nasty punishment (especially to the engine), and has top rate manueverability, climb performance and firepower.  Visability and engine management are also nice.  The only downside is it isn't going to win any races, but it accelerates and dives well enough to stay with opponents.

 

The k4 is crazy fast and climbs even crazier but it has less manueverability and a more difficult armament to employ.  

 

I'm not claiming I do it right but the k4 is less versitile than other 109s because its heavier and so crazy fast you are more confined in your fighting style where the spit feels confident across speeds and altitudes and is huge to me.

 

As has been said many times before and will be said many more times, what matters most is who's behind the stick.

Edited December 13, 2018 by 69TD_Joeasyrida

[Panthera]

The Spitfire turns better than every other plane ingame, and the climb rate is also very good. Level acceleration is nice, and level speed is actually not too shabby. The 2x Hispanos are also excellent. Only really the roll rate suffers at speed. For this reason the Spitfire IX is so far my favorite aircraft on the airquake servers.

 

The K4 by comparison doesn't turn quite as well, but don't underestimate it in a turn though as it is still one of the best turn fighters ingame at low to medium speeds, esp. sustained. At high speeds it suffers from a lack of control authority however, so that is worth exploiting if you're being attacked by one in a Spit and the situation allows it. The K4 obviously enjoys a big performance advantage in both speed & climb rate over the Spit IX, so don't try to outclimb or outrun it. Finally the Mk108 is a devastating gun, eventhough it isn't doing the damage it should atm, however the K4 only carries 65 rounds for it and the MV is quite slow at 540 m/s making it harder to use vs an aggressively maneuvering target.

 

In short for airquake servers I prefer the Spitfire, but for the bigger campaign map servers I'm sure I'd prefer the K4 due to its sheer performance and the fact that unless I meet a Spitfire I atleast know I can engage in a close in dogfight with good confidence, providing I keep to my corner speeds ofcourse. The Spitfire XIV would change that ofcourse, but then there's the 262 to contend with.

[eRoN]

15 hours ago, Ehret said:

After the 3.008 patch the 20mm Hispanos aren't as good as before, too. At least I have problems in QMB shooting down planes when in 3.007 one short pass was all what needed.

 

Indeed, even the 151/20's are like firing spitballs now. I haven't shot down a single fighter yet from one pass since the patch, but instead have to wait 5 min for them to eventually fail. Even 3-second continuous fire volleys, which before would be overkill even for a pe-2, result in nothing but one plume white smoke.

[Talon_]

FWIW the Spitfire IX is on 1943 engine settings while a DC-engined K4 is on 1945 engine settings. For a direct comparison of early Spits you compare the IX we have to a G6, and for a late Spit we are currently missing the correct amount of boost for a 1945 plane.

[ZachariasX]

15 hours ago, Panthera said:

In short for airquake servers I prefer the Spitfire, but for the bigger campaign map servers I'm sure I'd prefer the K4 due to its sheer performance and the fact that unless I meet a Spitfire I atleast know I can engage in a close in dogfight with good confidence, providing I keep to my corner speeds ofcourse

As for full real servers, if you can still set "60%" mixture, you can turn off smoke at very little performance penalty. The K4 on the other hand always leaves black trails on high power settings making it much easier not losing sight of him. For the Spit it is much easier to make the oponent lose sight of you if you manage a separation in a close fight at a steep angle.

 

Also, not leaving a black wake often provokes German fighters not going full bore when you're climbing after them, and suddenly you are within hitting range.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

The spit can fight the k4 if they choose to engage and play the spit's game. If the k4 is smart the spit can never get it.

[Herne]

I think the match up between these two is a lot more even than many people seem to believe. Especially if 25 ibs ever comes to the spit ix. They both climb exceedingly well, turn well, and have high power to weight ratios. 
 

Doesn't the spit ix with the merlin 70 have a higher critical altitude ? so it's not even like the k4 controls the high ground 

[Kurfurst]

1 hour ago, =11=Herne said:

I think the match up between these two is a lot more even than many people seem to believe. Especially if 25 ibs ever comes to the spit ix. They both climb exceedingly well, turn well, and have high power to weight ratios. 
 

 

Regretably, power falls off quickly with altitude, the supercharger being insufficient, especially for the +25 lbs boosted 1945 version, which can only maintain maximum power up to 10,000 feet (if it ever gets modelled, as currently we have the more typical 1944 version) and there is a large power hole in between the two supercharger speeds, that any 109 driver unaffected by such phenomenon is more than happy to take maximum advantage of. Since both aircraft climb very well, all that is needed to drag the Spit to the altitude its engine as week at, which can be obtained by a minute of climb.

 

1 hour ago, =11=Herne said:

Doesn't the spit ix with the merlin 70 have a higher critical altitude ? so it's not even like the k4 controls the high ground 

 

Critical altitude is only part of the story, there is also the power developed and drag factors. The M70 version is pretty good for a Spitfire, but it is still a good deal slower due to the high drag of the airframe. It turns well though, so in short it’s pretty much the same deal as near the ground, though the K-4’s advtantsge is less depressing.

[CIA_Yankee_]

19 hours ago, vee333f said:

we must remember that's it's not always the energy fighter that has the energy advantage turn fighters can use energy tactics too it seems like a lot of people think that the energy fighter always has the advantage 

sometimes the turn fighter will be higher and therefore will have the advantage at least for a bit

am not a expert though

 

That's obviously a given. Even a Gladiator can shoot down a Kurfurst if it catches the Kurfurst with its pants down. But that's not actually relevant to the discussion. The fact remains that, all things being equal, the energy fighter has a decisive advantage because it can dictate the terms of the engagement.

 

Of course any fighter can get shot down, because in reality, especially in an objective based scenario (such as on Wings, for example), all things are never equal. Kurfursts will be getting low and slow sometimes, or be engaging someone else and not notice the spit slotting up behind them, or will be outnumbered and be forced into losing its advantage (likely something that happened often in 1945). Team tactics trump aircraft performance all the time, of course.

 

But that's not actually relevant to the question of which aircraft is better. Objectively, a well coordinated flight of Kurfurst will reliably trounce a well coordinated flight of Spit IXs any day of the week, because they have superior climb and speed and high altitude performance, and the only reason they would get in a situation where the superior turning ability of the Spit is a decisive factor is if they DECIDE to do so (to escort a bomber, for example, or shoot one down, and so on). Or, of course, if they screw up... but by that same token the fighter who dictates the engagement is much better placed to take advantage of the enemy's screw ups than the enemy can of THEIR screw up.

 

This isn't it a "K4 OP, Spit XIV plz" post. This is more about the whole concept of energy vs turning fighter. In areal combat, the energy fighter is king. This is something people learned in WW1 (thus the rise of the SPAD, for example), and it hasn't changed since.

[Herne]

3 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

That's obviously a given. Even a Gladiator can shoot down a Kurfurst if it catches the Kurfurst with its pants down. But that's not actually relevant to the discussion. The fact remains that, all things being equal, the energy fighter has a decisive advantage because it can dictate the terms of the engagement.

 

Of course any fighter can get shot down, because in reality, especially in an objective based scenario (such as on Wings, for example), all things are never equal. Kurfursts will be getting low and slow sometimes, or be engaging someone else and not notice the spit slotting up behind them, or will be outnumbered and be forced into losing its advantage (likely something that happened often in 1945). Team tactics trump aircraft performance all the time, of course.

 

But that's not actually relevant to the question of which aircraft is better. Objectively, a well coordinated flight of Kurfurst will reliably trounce a well coordinated flight of Spit IXs any day of the week, because they have superior climb and speed and high altitude performance, and the only reason they would get in a situation where the superior turning ability of the Spit is a decisive factor is if they DECIDE to do so (to escort a bomber, for example, or shoot one down, and so on). Or, of course, if they screw up... but by that same token the fighter who dictates the engagement is much better placed to take advantage of the enemy's screw ups than the enemy can of THEIR screw up.

 

This isn't it a "K4 OP, Spit XIV plz" post. This is more about the whole concept of energy vs turning fighter. In areal combat, the energy fighter is king. This is something people learned in WW1 (thus the rise of the SPAD, for example), and it hasn't changed since.

 

I still think if a spit with merlin 70 gets high and stays high, above the k4's critical altitude, the odds are more even. If the spit pilot stays disciplined and maintains altitude, then the k4 pilots have to decide if they wan't to play. And the higher they then climb the better the advantage for the spit. 

[CIA_Yankee_]

11 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

 

I still think if a spit with merlin 70 gets high and stays high, above the k4's critical altitude, the odds are more even. If the spit pilot stays disciplined and maintains altitude, then the k4 pilots have to decide if they wan't to play. And the higher they then climb the better the advantage for the spit. 

 

But that's the point... the K4 gets to decide. Smart pilots play and only engage when they have a good shot.

 

In such a situation, if it runs into a Spit who proves to be eternally vigilant and never screws up, the K4 can just refuse the engagement and go off to find a better target. That's true superiority.

 

(Note: I'm not that smart a pilot... but then again my life isn't actually on the line. If it were, I'd much rather be in the Kurfurst).

Edited December 14, 2018 by 71st_AH_Yankee_

[Herne]

Just now, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

But that's the point... the K4 gets to decide. Smart pilots play and only engage when they have a good shot.

 

In such a situation, if it runs into a Spit who proves to be eternally vigilant and never screws up, the K4 can just refuse the engagement and go off to find a better target. That's true superiority.

 

then it's a stalemate, because the spit pilot sitting up high on his perch also has to make the decision of dive and engage, or just sit up high and tease the k4 into coming up and having a go. It really comes down to who makes the least mistakes. 

I'm forever making poor decisions no matter which airframe I fly lol

[CIA_Yankee_]

32 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

 

then it's a stalemate, because the spit pilot sitting up high on his perch also has to make the decision of dive and engage, or just sit up high and tease the k4 into coming up and having a go. It really comes down to who makes the least mistakes. 

I'm forever making poor decisions no matter which airframe I fly lol

 

If the Spit is sitting above the K4, then the K4 already screwed up.

 

And to be fair, it's not a stalemate: the K4 can just go away and not take the risk. A stalemate would be if neither could disengage without fear of putting themselves at risk. In this case the K4 can disengage safely, while the Spit will be turning his back to an enemy the moment he tries to call it quits.

 

That said, and this is an important point, consider what would happen if the Spit was the one at higher altitude: this is a situation where it is easier for the K4 to deny or survive the engagement than it would be if the situations were reversed. The K4 will gain energy superiority over the Spit eventually... whereas in the reverse situation the Spit never actually could gain superiority unless the K4 lets it.

 

But yes, in a situation where an aircraft has energy superiority over another, it will always have the advantage. Even a Lagg will have the edge over the K4 if it catches the K4 low and slow. The difference is that the K4 has the chance to catch up to and eventually surpass the Lagg's energy (if it survives the passes from the Lagg, of course!) and then can turn the engagement around or get away. But the reverse would never be true: the K4, as a superior energy fighter, has the option to never let the Lagg catch up.

Edited December 14, 2018 by 71st_AH_Yankee_

[Herne]

2 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

If the Spit is sitting above the K4, then the K4 already screwed up.

 

That said, and this is an important point: this is a situation where it is easier for the K4 to deny the engagement than it would be if the situations were reversed. The K4 will gain energy superiority over the Spit eventually... whereas in the reverse situation the Spit never actually could gain superiority unless the K4 lets it.

 

But yes, in a situation where an aircraft has energy superiority over another, it will always have the advantage. Even a Lagg will have the edge over the K4 if it catches the K4 low and slow. The difference is that the K4 has the chance to catch up to and eventually surpass the Lagg's energy (if it survives the passes from the Lagg, of course!) and then can turn the engagement around or get away. But the reverse would never be true: the K4, as a superior energy fighter, has the option to never let the Lagg catch up.

 

Well that's kind of my point, Given the merlin 70's higher critical altitude, it should be able to out climb the k4 at all altitudes above k4 crit alt. ofcourse the k4 could still try to dive away, but where the k4 is starting to feel flat in terms of engine power the merlin 70 will still be going strong. 

I don't know if that is a linear curve on power loss with alt above crit altitude though. I'm assuming that it is but could very well be wrong

 

[CountZero]

M70 Spit9 is slower then K4 at all altitudes in game, K4 can fight it up high with no problem, just because its HF doset imidiatly mean its better then other airplane up high, its just better then LF engine by 10-20kmh IAS up high, but K4 is still faster then HF Spit 9 at any alt.

 

From in game specs:

Spit9HF

"Merlin 70 engine:

Maximum true air speed at sea level, 3000 RPM, boost +18: 532 km/h
Maximum true air speed at 4900 m, 3000 RPM, boost +18: 634 km/h
Maximum true air speed at 8500 m, 3000 RPM, boost +18: 677 km/h

Service ceiling: 13000 m
Climb rate at sea level: 18.5 m/s
Climb rate at 3000 m: 17.5 m/s
Climb rate at 6000 m: 14.1 m/s

 

Maximum performance turn at sea level: 17.8 s, at 270 km/h IAS.
Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 20.7 s, at 260 km/h IAS."

 

109k4 1.8

DB-605DB engine:

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Emergency: 599 km/h
Maximum true air speed at 7500 m, engine mode - Emergency: 702 km/h
Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 543 km/h
Maximum true air speed at 8000 m, engine mode - Combat: 684 km/h

Service ceiling: 12300 m
Climb rate at sea level: 20.5 m/s
Climb rate at 3000 m: 17.5 m/s
Climb rate at 6000 m: 13.4 m/s

Maximum performance turn at sea level: 24.0 s, at 270 km/h IAS.
Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 32.2 s, at 270 km/h IAS.

Edited December 14, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[vee333f]

thanks for the specs!

[CountZero]

You have them on forum also, Han updated them recently so all airplanes we have in game now have them on forum also:

 

[vee333f]

i think if you get the energy advantage even in a lagg against a k4 the k4 will get shot down before he gets the energy advantage most of the time  

i think

 

[Herne]

21 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

M70 Spit9 is slower then K4 at all altitudes in game, K4 can fight it up high with no problem, just because its HF doset imidiatly mean its better then other airplane up high, its just better then LF engine by 10-20kmh IAS up high, but K4 is still faster then HF Spit 9 at any alt.

 

From in game specs:

Spit9HF

"Merlin 70 engine:

Maximum true air speed at sea level, 3000 RPM, boost +18: 532 km/h
Maximum true air speed at 4900 m, 3000 RPM, boost +18: 634 km/h
Maximum true air speed at 8500 m, 3000 RPM, boost +18: 677 km/h

Service ceiling: 13000 m
Climb rate at sea level: 18.5 m/s
Climb rate at 3000 m: 17.5 m/s
Climb rate at 6000 m: 14.1 m/s

 

Maximum performance turn at sea level: 17.8 s, at 270 km/h IAS.
Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 20.7 s, at 260 km/h IAS."

 

109k4 1.8

DB-605DB engine:

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Emergency: 599 km/h
Maximum true air speed at 7500 m, engine mode - Emergency: 702 km/h
Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 543 km/h
Maximum true air speed at 8000 m, engine mode - Combat: 684 km/h

Service ceiling: 12300 m
Climb rate at sea level: 20.5 m/s
Climb rate at 3000 m: 17.5 m/s
Climb rate at 6000 m: 13.4 m/s

Maximum performance turn at sea level: 24.0 s, at 270 km/h IAS.
Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 32.2 s, at 270 km/h IAS.

 

 

8500 metres is 27500 feet. and the spit can already out climb the k4 since 6000 metres according to the data you provided so lets go even higher say to 35000 feet, which bird is most comfortable up there ?

[CIA_Yankee_]

53 minutes ago, vee333f said:

i think if you get the energy advantage even in a lagg against a k4 the k4 will get shot down before he gets the energy advantage most of the time  

i think

 

 

The Lagg has the advantage, yes, but it's inherently a momentary one, a moment which the K4 will erode away the longer it survives, until eventually the K4 will be able to extend away and turn the tables. 

 

But there's no denying that any aircraft can get E over another one, its just not relevant in a "which aircraft is better" discussion, because even the best airplane can be taken down by the worst aircraft if it's caught low and slow.

 

 

[vee333f]

yes that's true sorry

[Mauf]

In general, it's a bit of a high noon scenario between the two in a 1 vs 1 situation (with the one difference that the K4 can back away from it unlike the Spit). The Spit can deny the K4 its shot but it won't have the ability to turn the table around on the K4. If both pilots don't make errors, this situation will stay for a bloody long time or the K4 just buggers off. If the K4 gets too antsy and starts turning too much with the spit, the spit can get a shot in on the climb out of the K4. If the Spit overdoes it on the turn and stalls or doesn't turn hard enough, the K4 can pounce and get a shot in.

 

Despite what certain factions say on the forum, eating one 30mm shell normally means that your turning capability is hampered enough for a K4 to catch you now easily unless you both stay at a slow speed for some reason and the G forces on your plane stay low (Quote Han: So when one of your wing is in heavy holes, and other is clear - it will be hard to keep plane in high-G because plane will have heavy tendency to roll and yaw to the side of damaged wing. <- And yes, that effect is modelled not to mention that the high Gs will continue damaging your wing until it goes pop).

 

Almost the same on the K4, a good enough volley into it and it won't turn, climb or run well enough to clear the spit anymore. Or you'll damage the radiators, fuel, engine and put the K4 on a harsh ticking clock which means that you can now sit it out until the K4 is forced to make a move or lose the fight.

 

The whole situation of course is instantly tipped the moment another plane shows up so your worst enemy or best friend is the next plane to show up to the game.

[CountZero]

7 hours ago, =11=Herne said:

 

 

8500 metres is 27500 feet. and the spit can already out climb the k4 since 6000 metres according to the data you provided so lets go even higher say to 35000 feet, which bird is most comfortable up there ?

10km=33kft spit9m70 481kmh ias, 109k4 1.8 494kmh ias
11km=36kft spit9m70 344kmh ias, 109k4 1.8 348kmh ias

maybe abow 11km spit catches up in speed but didnt bather to see 

edit:

try top speed at 12km=39kft spit9m70 305kmh ias, 109 k4 1.8 284kmh ias, so it beats 109 k4 by big margine there

Edited December 15, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[vee333f]

what alt did the spits operate at?

[Talon_]

5 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Critical altitude is only part of the story, there is also the power developed and drag factors. The M70 version is pretty good for a Spitfire, but it is still a good deal slower due to the high drag of the airframe. It turns well though, so in short it’s pretty much the same deal as near the ground, though the K-4’s advtantsge is less depressing.

 

Except of course the Spitfire with a Merlin 70 is faster than a K-4 above 10km currently, but I guess you've not bothered testing them.

 

Also the K-4 climbs slower than both the P-47D and the Merlin 66 Spitfires above 5km which leaves it very vulnerable in my experience.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Talon_