Jump to content

Developer Diary 272 - Discussion


Han
 Share

Recommended Posts

=TH=mincer
52 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

How our Spit XIV relates to our Spit IX? Since our Spit IX has Merlin with 2 stage supercharger. I guess XIV would be much faster at high alt and considerably faster at med alts. Also it would climb much better and would be less maneuverable (at low med alts only)?

Also interesting that an Spit from earlier (in timescale) battle is overall better than the one that fought a bit later in the war..


Yeah, I am very curious to see if Spit XIV is comparable in climb with 109s having MW50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
1 hour ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

How our Spit XIV relates to our Spit IX? Since our Spit IX has Merlin with 2 stage supercharger. I guess XIV would be much faster at high alt and considerably faster at med alts. Also it would climb much better and would be less maneuverable (at low med alts only)?

Also interesting that an Spit from earlier (in timescale) battle is overall better than the one that fought a bit later in the war..


The XIV has the more powerful Griffon 65 engine, with a 2 stage supercharger as well. It is faster at all altitudes than the regular LF Mk IX, and climbs better. It will be the fastest prop plane at very high altitudes in the sim, faster than P-47 and P-51 even. It was 500 Kg heavier but even after the weight increase the wing loading remains lower than most other fighters, and at least in some comparative trials it seems it didn't have it's turning ability harmed significantly.

The 150 octane Mk IX matches the regular XIV speed at low altitudes and climb. It would also turn better at low and medium-highish altitudes given it has similar engine power with less weight. The XIV with 150 octane fuel gets a good boost in power as well and manages to leapfrog the 150 IX in speed and climb rate.

About introduction dates, the XIV came later than the LF Mk IX, but the IX remained one of the main RAF fighters with the XIV being there in lower numbers. It could have come for either Bodenplatte or Normandy. The devs decided to have the lineup with one of the workhorse fighters (Mk IX) and one of the rarer more powerful ones (Tempest). For Battle of Normandy they did the same, with the Typhoon being the workhorse and Spit Mk XIV being the rarer top performer.  They could have done it in the opposite way (Mk XIV and Typhoon for Bodenplatte, Mk IX and Tempest for Normandy) and it would have been just as correct in regards to the timeframe of these planes.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beautiful cathedrals mean we must have Jeep for Allies, and a Kubelwagen for Axis,

so when we get a 24 hour pass, we  can forget the war for a while and tour these beautifies.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero
4 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

Very nice.

 

Will the MKXIV be sold as a plane as soon as it's done?

With previous DLC that happend when whole early acces of it is over, only then 2 collector airplanes could be bought separatly from main DLC.

25 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


The XIV has the more powerful Griffon 65 engine, with a 2 stage supercharger as well. It is faster at all altitudes than the regular LF Mk IX, and climbs better. It will be the fastest prop plane at very high altitudes in the sim, faster than P-47 and P-51 even. It was 500 Kg heavier but even after the weight increase the wing loading remains lower than most other fighters, and at least in some comparative trials it seems it didn't have it's turning ability harmed significantly.

The 150 octane Mk IX matches the regular XIV speed at low altitudes and climb. It would also turn better at low and medium-highish altitudes given it has similar engine power with less weight. The XIV with 150 octane fuel gets a good boost in power as well and manages to leapfrog the 150 IX in speed and climb rate.

About introduction dates, the XIV came later than the LF Mk IX, but the IX remained one of the main RAF fighters with the XIV being there in lower numbers. It could have come for either Bodenplatte or Normandy. The devs decided to have the lineup with one of the workhorse fighters (Mk IX) and one of the rarer more powerful ones (Tempest). For Battle of Normandy they did the same, with the Typhoon being the workhorse and Spit Mk XIV being the rarer top performer.  They could have done it in the opposite way (Mk XIV and Typhoon for Bodenplatte, Mk IX and Tempest for Normandy) and it would have been just as correct in regards to the timeframe of these planes.

Didnt bather to look but were the timers same, 5min emrgancy/boost and 1h combat ? 

Also with 150 oct we are getting +21 or +25lbs ? i guess +18 is normal version. And will it have shorter time in air regarding fuel amount and consumption of it ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Algy-Lacey

A DD on Saturday?! And progress of the Spitfire Mk XIVc... for me the most anticipated aircraft in the whole 20 year history of IL-2 and it's successors, so happy and excited to see that it is just around the corner!

 

And, for those with eagle-eyes, the developers have corrected the Mk XIV ailerons since the last time the fighter was mentioned in a DD...

 

(the image on the left is how it was in old DD... aileron extending further, the real Mk XIV had more inboard ailerons introduced on the Mk VIII)

Spitfire XIVc corrected aileron.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
1 hour ago, CountZero said:

Didnt bather to look but were the timers same, 5min emrgancy/boost and 1h combat ? 

Also with 150 oct we are getting +21 or +25lbs ? i guess +18 is normal version. And will it have shorter time in air regarding fuel amount and consumption of it ?

 

Yes 1 hour combat at +9 boost 2600 RPM. 5 min emergency at  +18 boost 2750 RPM. With 150 octane we will be getting +21 boost, up to 2200 HP.

And IIRC it got extra internal fuel amount but still resulted in lower time in the air, for roughly the same range overall given the extra speed (though this at cruise settings, might be a different story in continuous / combat).

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Algy-Lacey
54 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Yes 1 hour combat at +9 boost 2600 RPM. 5 min emergency at  +18 boost 2750 RPM. With 150 octane we will be getting +21 boost, up to 2200 HP

 

Are you sure it's at +9 boost? The Mk.IXe we've got can do 1 hour at +12 boost 2850 rpm, well they are different engines, after all. I wonder what the difference in power is between a Merlin at +12 and a Griffon at +9?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lythronax
6 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Fine looking Spitfire, can't wait for it to be released. The first pic with the 5 blades and big ass radiators is glorious. 

 

I still don't understand why they still used the C wing with 4 x 7.69 guns though. I'd imagine at this point of the war the would have been rendered useless.

 

AA truck also looking great!

We'll be getting both C and E Wing armaments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

 As he pulled up he saw the E/A fireing at him with insufficient deflection, and it appeared that the turning circle of the Spitfire XIV was better than that of the F.W. 190.

 

 

And this surprised no one, ever.

 

Seriously, at this point in the war, I'm wondering why this would even be worth mentioning. The 190 was never known to be a turner, especially so with the fatter, late-war variants.

 

As I understand it, the only contemporary (designed at the same time or later) WWII plane that could easily turn inside a Spitfire was the A6M2 Zero (and maybe a few other less famous Japanese planes--if they'd ever meet in combat). This was, I believe, confirmed when the Zero met the Spit Mk. V in Australia. I'm unsure if later, heavier Zero versions would've remained as competitive in a turn.

 

6 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I still don't understand why they still used the C wing with 4 x 7.69 guns though. I'd imagine at this point of the war the would have been rendered useless.

 

I found that perplexing as well. I can't express the depth of my hatred for wing mounted light machine guns at any point in the war. But in... 1944?

 

3 hours ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

How our Spit XIV relates to our Spit IX? Since our Spit IX has Merlin with 2 stage supercharger. I guess XIV would be much faster at high alt and considerably faster at med alts. Also it would climb much better and would be less maneuverable (at low med alts only)?

Also interesting that an Spit from earlier (in timescale) battle is overall better than the one that fought a bit later in the war..

 

Some veteran Spitfire pilots loved the XIV, some (famous ones) claimed it wasn't even a Spitfire anymore (because it was so different in handling). From my limited understanding (mostly going by a handful of books), many pilots thought the IX was the best, while some still preferred the original circa BoB Spitfires.

 

In terms of pure handling, I'd expect the early marks to be the best. But in terms of overall performance plus handling, the IX is likely the best of both worlds. The XIV, I would wager, is going to be the Spitfire equivalent of the 109K. The most powerful of the series, but also the worst handling.

 

Regarding climbing, supposedly if bounced from on high, an XIV could 'stand on its tail' to meet its attackers with little effort.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Some veteran Spitfire pilots loved the XIV, some (famous ones) claimed it wasn't even a Spitfire anymore (because it was so different in handling). From my limited understanding (mostly going by a handful of books), many pilots thought the IX was the best, while some still preferred the original circa BoB Spitfires.

 

In terms of pure handling, I'd expect the early marks to be the best. But in terms of overall performance plus handling, the IX is likely the best of both worlds. The XIV, I would wager, is going to be the Spitfire equivalent of the 109K. The most powerful of the series, but also the worst handling.

 

Regarding climbing, supposedly if bounced from on high, an XIV could 'stand on its tail' to meet its attackers with little effort.

Outperformed 109G series in every way, 

Had same turn circle as the Spitfire IX, just a much beefier engine. 

109K unless flown very smartly is in deep trouble with these coming, because she's very strong. 

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

8 minutes ago, Denum said:

Outperformed 109G series in every way, 

Had same turn circle as the Spitfire IX, just a much beefier engine. 

109K unless flown very smartly is in deep trouble with these coming, because she's very strong. Has better climb and turn circle from what I can see. 

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

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-also-according-to-adolf-galland-the-spitfire-mk-xiv-and-not-the-p-51d-was-the-best-piston-engined-fighter-of-wwii-in-europe

Final line there from Galland says it all

"The best part about the XIV is that there were so few of them." 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Denum said:

Outperformed 109G series in every way, 

Had same turn circle as the Spitfire IX, just a much beefier engine. 

109K unless flown very smartly is in deep trouble with these coming, because she's very strong. 

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

 

I wasn't saying the K was equal in performance to the XIV. I was using the analogy of the progression of design throughout the war.

 

109E series = early mark Spitfires. 109F series = Spitfire IX. 109K = Spitfire XIV.

 

In engineering, you don't get something for nothing. You don't add weight and power to the same airframe without consequence. You can't tell me the XIV will handle at all like the IX.

 

Some direct quotes from one of my books:

 

Don Healey, Flight Lieutenant:

 

"The Mk XIV was a hairy beast to fly, and it took some getting used to. I personally preferred the old Mk V from a flying standpoint."

 

"One aspect you always had to bear in mind with the Mk XIV that no flying surface trimming could allow for is its considerable weight [...] Therefore, extra height had to be allowed when rolling and looping, as it tended to 'wash out' when flown this way."

 

He then goes on to describe how Ginger Lacey, a veteran and a high scoring ace, nearly killed himself by putting the XIV in a loop at 2500 feet, stalling out near the top of the loop, entering an inverted spin, and only pulling out a few feet from the ground. Afterwards, Lacey recommended to never try a loop without at least 4000 feet to play with.

 

Meanwhile, Johnnie Johnson (who said the XIV "is not a Spitfire anymore") claims the torque is so powerful, it needs to be trimmed constantly, especially during maneuvers.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

The cathedrals look awesome, as does the spit!

Seconded and I have enjoyed immensely my time wandering around the cathedrals in Rouen, I will this time round, get to see them from the air in VR in a lovely XIV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Algy-Lacey
5 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

"One aspect you always had to bear in mind with the Mk XIV that no flying surface trimming could allow for is its considerable weight [...] Therefore, extra height had to be allowed when rolling and looping, as it tended to 'wash out' when flown this way."

 

He then goes on to describe how Ginger Lacey, a veteran and a high scoring ace, nearly killed himself by putting the XIV in a loop at 2500 feet, stalling out near the top of the loop, entering an inverted spin, and only pulling out a few feet from the ground. Afterwards, Lacey recommended to never try a loop without at least 4000 feet to play with.

 

Meanwhile, Johnnie Johnson (who said the XIV "is not a Spitfire anymore") claims the torque is so powerful, it needs to be trimmed constantly, especially during maneuvers.

 

Yeah I found the same quote somewhere else...

 

In operational service many pilots initially found that the new fighter could be difficult to handle, particularly if they were used to earlier Spitfire marks. Don Healy of 17 Squadron, based at Madura recalled that the Mk XIV was;

"a hairy beast to fly and took some getting used to. I personally preferred the old Mk Vs from a flying standpoint...Even with full aileron, elevator and rudder, this brute of a fighter took off slightly sideways."

I for one am looking forward to trying to tame the XIV with the tricky handling and careful application of throttle.

 

The same source claims that the Mk XIV could reach 446 mph at 25000 feet. It's not clear whether this is for one of the prototypes or the production model. It shows that the fighter was a beast at most altitudes!

 

I don't think comparison with the 109K is straightforward. The 109 always had a smaller wing area, and despite increased power, increased weight and high wing loading affected turn performance negatively. The same might be said of the Mk XIV, but the Spitfire started off with a wing of greater area and lift, so could accomodate the increased weight, and the huge power and thrust of the Griffon and 5 bladed prop would have pulled it through the turns. The Mk XIV might have the same sustained turn time in seconds as the Mk IX (I don't know, I've never seen a direct comparison) you would have to guess that the diameter of the turn would be quite a lot larger and corner speed higher.

 

I can't wait to see how the developers model this pinnacle of late war fighter development!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I wasn't saying the K was equal in performance to the XIV. I was using the analogy of the progression of design throughout the war.

 

109E series = early mark Spitfires. 109F series = Spitfire IX. 109K = Spitfire XIV.

 

In engineering, you don't get something for nothing. You don't add weight and power to the same airframe without consequence. You can't tell me the XIV will handle at all like the IX.

 

Some direct quotes from one of my books:

 

Don Healey, Flight Lieutenant:

 

"The Mk XIV was a hairy beast to fly, and it took some getting used to. I personally preferred the old Mk V from a flying standpoint."

 

"One aspect you always had to bear in mind with the Mk XIV that no flying surface trimming could allow for is its considerable weight [...] Therefore, extra height had to be allowed when rolling and looping, as it tended to 'wash out' when flown this way."

 

He then goes on to describe how Ginger Lacey, a veteran and a high scoring ace, nearly killed himself by putting the XIV in a loop at 2500 feet, stalling out near the top of the loop, entering an inverted spin, and only pulling out a few feet from the ground. Afterwards, Lacey recommended to never try a loop without at least 4000 feet to play with.

 

Meanwhile, Johnnie Johnson (who said the XIV "is not a Spitfire anymore") claims the torque is so powerful, it needs to be trimmed constantly, especially during maneuvers.

I hope they modeled that in. 

 

But seeing how 109s lack that violent prop torque I don't see it happening.

 

Turn circle is the same. Handling is different though 

 

 

 

Edited by Denum
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Algy-Lacey said:

 

I don't think comparison with the 109K is straightforward.

 

 

Again, I'm only saying the XIV would clearly suffer degraded handling in a similar manner to how the 109 lost handling from the F series on. It doesn't really matter if the specifics of how the handling degrades are the same. Merely that handling quality is appreciably lost as a design moves beyond its optimal specifications.

 

The Spitfire IX is arguably the best balance of speed and handling for the whole Spitfire series, just as the 109F is the best balance of speed and handling for the 109 series. Any changes made after these engineering sweet spots will be sacrificing something to gain something else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mysticpuma

Thank you for the update. 

It was great to see some new visual effects updated/changed in the last patch, will there be changes to the  very, very thick black smoke trails and other effects from burning aircraft in future updates? Currently there is very little variety and always the extreme long thick black smoke is shown  :(

Genuinely interested in the visual effects work, cheers, Mysticpuma. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
5 hours ago, Algy-Lacey said:

 

Are you sure it's at +9 boost? The Mk.IXe we've got can do 1 hour at +12 boost 2850 rpm, well they are different engines, after all. I wonder what the difference in power is between a Merlin at +12 and a Griffon at +9?


At least the manual lists +9 boost as the 1 hour rated climbing mode. +12 boost was for take off but it doesn't list a time limit for it. About engine power at that setting I haven't seen numbers on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19te.Deafbee

I am really looking forward to fly the Spit 14.  Also I see more and more people coming to this sim because of the tanks.  Especially the servers like the Finnish feels more and more like a complete war.  The best of 2 worlds with WW2 plane and tank enthusiastics. 

 

Keep up the great work team.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Talisman
16 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Again, I'm only saying the XIV would clearly suffer degraded handling in a similar manner to how the 109 lost handling from the F series on. It doesn't really matter if the specifics of how the handling degrades are the same. Merely that handling quality is appreciably lost as a design moves beyond its optimal specifications.

 

The Spitfire IX is arguably the best balance of speed and handling for the whole Spitfire series, just as the 109F is the best balance of speed and handling for the 109 series. Any changes made after these engineering sweet spots will be sacrificing something to gain something else.

 

Jeffrey Quill, the famous Spitfire test pilot, who also fought in the Battle of Britain with victories to his name, said in his book that in his opinion "the Mk XIV turned out to be the best of all the fighter variants of the Spitfire"; and he should know! 

 

The above quote about the XIV is in his book, 'Spitfire' (IBSN 0-09-937020-4) on the first page of chapter 20.

 

Anyone who may not be aware who Jeffrey Quill is might like to check out the link below:

 

Jeffrey Quill - Wikipedia

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited by ACG_Talisman
Corrected IBSN.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Talisman

The historical combat report linked below shows 150 rounds for each of the two cannon with 76 rounds S.A.P.I. and 74 rounds H.E.I. per gun for the Spitfire XIV on 7th March 1944.  This armament information is near the bottom of the report, just above the signatures.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/610_Harding_7march44.pdf

 

Would the developers be able to confirm this in any way for the upcoming Spitfire XIV?

 

Thank you in anticipation.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kestrel79

Does anyone know if we will get the version of the Spit 14 with the chopped down back behind the canopy? Or was that an even later version I'm thinking of? I always thought that version looked really sleek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kestrel79 said:

Does anyone know if we will get the version of the Spit 14 with the chopped down back behind the canopy? Or was that an even later version I'm thinking of? I always thought that version looked really sleek.

 

Probably not, seeing that it really only entered service in the spring of 1945 and would require significant model changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bin_Hidin said:

does anyone know if we will be getting the bubble canopy as a modification as well?

 

I'm pretty sure we'll just get the one cockpit... the bubble canopy was reduced very late apparently (and saw almost no air combat). I suspect the only aircraft with multiple cockpits will be the P-51 (Malcolm Hood option).

 

IMHO, the aircraft that would most benefit from a second canopy option would be the Typhoon - as it would represent early production and allow its use in missions set at earlier dates (whereas currently it would be inaccurate to use it at an earlier time - whereas non-bubble canopy Spits XIV were used until the end of the war).

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard

The Luftwaffe when the Mk XIV turns up. 

 

giphy (26).gif

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard
  • Like 2
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Han unpinned this topic
dukethejuke

Will the Shermans have the hedgerow cutters as an option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dukethejuke said:

Will the Shermans have the hedgerow cutters as an option?

 

Well, I'm not sure, if this will be possible. As a modification maybe yes, but I doubt that it will possible to use it

as it was designed for. Historically, the hedgerow cutters were also ploughs because the hedgerows were not

a simple row of bushes and trees, no, this type of vegetation was sitting/growing on some kind of earth walls.

 

So, these cutters did not only cut away the vegetation, but also plough a path through the earth walls. This

also to avoid tanks being exposed with their weakest point of armour - the belly - when driving over those

earth walls.

 

Now, that being said, to actually model this kind of earth moving task, we need a even more detailed map

as we already have with the Prokhorovka map. Again, this will likely affect the performance of the game.

Plus, we have falling trees modelled but crater or other soil destruction is not present (at the moment).

Edited by THERION
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uufflakke

It looks like as if both windows of the GAZ-MM truck are wiped while there is only one wiper at the driver's side.

 

 

GAZ-MM Truck.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlitzPig_EL

Even more interesting is that they have properly modeled the Trico brand vacuum wiper motor.

 

The details of this model continue to amaze the old car guy that I am.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...