The Spit IA should have a Constant Speed Prop

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

The fact the game has the Spit IA with a two speed prop is completely in error.

Yes, they INITIALLY came from the factory with the two speed prop, but this was changed starting in late June 1940 on orders from Fighter Command's Hugh Dowding.

"Spitfire: The History" by Eric B Morgan and Edward Shacklady is one of the most well respected sources for information on the Spitfire. The facts are detailed clearly in the chapter on the Spit I:

EDIT:

Unfortunately some anonymous person has complained to Image Shack that the images I posted were copyright, and they have been removed. I wonder who might be interested in censoring information which shows there should be an improvement in Spitfire performance... ;) In any case, anyone who wishes to know the facts regarding De Havilland's upgrade of the Spit I's propellors from two speed to Constant Speed only has to examine the book, pages 53, 54, 55, and 56.

To quote from the book:

Starting on Monday 24 June de Havilland engineers drove to the twelve Spitfire Stations, each carrying six conversion sets. On arrival the engineers asked for a picked crew of fitters who had to watch the de Havilland man convert an aircraft, instructing the RAF fitters at the same time. A second aircraft was then converted by the RAF crew with the engineer's help, and a third aircraft was completed with him supporting only. He then proceeded to the next station. By 16 August every Spitfire and Hurricane had been converted, including those in store.


(there is also a little info on 100 octane fuel, but the best material there is to be found in the original files)

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6159/42873216.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1821/82710803.jpg

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/6168/94305516.jpg

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1002/68176078.jpg

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4729/79585770.jpg

By the way, Kurfurst has already admitted he owns this book, yet he goes on about how the two speed props are appropriate...

[Bewolf]

Salute

The fact the game has the Spit IA with a two speed prop is completely in error.

Yes, they INITIALLY came from the factory with the two speed prop, but this was changed starting in late June 1940 on orders from Fighter Command's Hugh Dowding.



By the way, Kurfurst has already admitted he owns this book, yet he goes on about how the two speed props are appropriate...

Oh for gods sake, can't you folks simply go out and grab a child's lollipop instead?

[mattag08]

Did they actually fly combat missions with the two speed prop?

[Skoshi Tiger]

The problem is that the differencews between a late model MkI and an MkII are so minor that most of use wouldn't see the difference.

By putting in an earlier model MkI it give mission designers more flexibility when it comes to Phoney war/Dunkirk senarios.

I bet there at least a couple of 109 models that were left out that are sorely missed!


Cheers

[*Buzzsaw*]

Did they actually fly combat missions with the two speed prop?

Yes. before the Battle of Britain. First kills scored by Spits were on Oct. 16th 1939, when two Heinkel III's were shot down over the Firth of Forth in Scotland. Those Spits were two pitch versions. And there were quite a few Spits in combat over Dunkirk in late May and early June. Not clear if those were +12 boost versions, but certainly it was likely they were equipped with two pitch props.

In any case, the Spit I can stay as a two pitch version, with max. +6 boost for those who want to do an early version. The Spit IA should be upgraded with both a constant speed prop and +12 boost.

[*Buzzsaw*]

The problem is that the differencews between a late model MkI and an MkII are so minor that most of use wouldn't see the difference.

By putting in an earlier model MkI it give mission designers more flexibility when it comes to Phoney war/Dunkirk senarios.

I bet there at least a couple of 109 models that were left out that are sorely missed!


Cheers

1) We don't have a MkII modelled correctly.

2) There is a definite difference between a late Spit I and Spit II.

3) Yes there are a couple of 109 models left out, but those missing models were not present in anywhere near the numbers of the British aircraft which are mismodelled in the game. All of the Spitfires and Hurricanes in No. 10, 11 and 12 Groups were using 100 octane, and all the Spitfires had been re-equipped with constant speed props. That is basically the entire fleet of aircraft which fought the Battle.

In the game we don't have a single Spitfire which is running at correct performance levels.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Looking at the charts of similarly equiped MkI and MkIIs there are differences but in my opinion they are quite minor.

The following link shows a comparison between a late model MkIa and a MkIIa
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

Cheers

[angrueo]

1) We don't have a MkII modelled correctly.

2) There is a definite difference between a late Spit I and Spit II.

3) Yes there are a couple of 109 models left out, but those missing models were not present in anywhere near the numbers of the British aircraft which are mismodelled in the game. All of the Spitfires and Hurricanes in No. 10, 11 and 12 Groups were using 100 octane, and all the Spitfires had been re-equipped with constant speed props. That is basically the entire fleet of aircraft which fought the Battle.

In the game we don't have a single Spitfire which is running at correct performance levels.

I'm not even trying to deny your point. But Oleg himself (or Luthier, I don't remember), stated that some concessions were to be made in order to address playability.
So, having in mind that it is a videogame, not a documentary, it maybe requires some balance between forces that are not exactly historic.

[jf1981]

Salute

The fact the game has the Spit IA with a two speed prop is completely in error.

Yes, they INITIALLY came from the factory with the two speed prop, but this was changed starting in late June 1940 on orders from Fighter Command's Hugh Dowding.

"Spitfire: The History" by Eric B Morgan and Edward Shacklady is one of the most well respected sources for information on the Spitfire. The facts are detailed clearly in the chapter on the Spit I:

(there is also a little info on 100 octane fuel, but the best material there is to be found in the original files)

[Images cut]

By the way, Kurfurst has already admitted he owns this book, yet he goes on about how the two speed props are appropriate...


Great extract thanks

[*Buzzsaw*]

I'm not even trying to deny your point. But Oleg himself (or Luthier, I don't remember), stated that some concessions were to be made in order to address playability.
So, having in mind that it is a videogame, not a documentary, it maybe requires some balance between forces that are not exactly historic.

"Playability"?... you have some strange notions of what is playability.

Let's see, the Spit II was only available in small numbers at the end of the Battle, (and of course, Luthier is talking about introducing the 109E4) so the RAF is supposed to fight with the +6 boost Hurricane and the +6 boost Spit with dual pitch props?

And of course, 2/3's of the RAF fighters were Hurricanes.

By your definition of playability, the Luftwaffe is supposed to have fighters with all the performance edges, ie. a Me-110 able to outclimb and outspeed the Spitfire and Hurricane... the 110 which was such a failure in the historical battle it had to be given 109's to escort itself?

And in your perfect playable world, even though they have the inferior fighters, and the RAF will be outnumbered 3-1, the Brits are supposed to attack and shoot down the Luftwaffe bombers as well?

Never mind that even if +12 boost was enabled on the Hurricane it would still be slower and climb slower than the 109, and even against the +12 boost Spitfire, the 109 would be faster and climb better over 18,000 ft, which yes, is the altitude the German bombers typically come in at. And that if the Luftwaffe fighters even used a remote bit of common sense, they could sit over top of their bombers in the sun and bounce any RAF fighters stupid enough to make attacks...

And that the 109 can easily escape the Hurricane and Spit, the first of which has a max dive speed of 390 mph, (624kph) or the Spit with a max dive speed of 450 mph (720 kph) compared to the 109 which had far better dive acceleration, no problems with negative G from pushing its nose down, and a max dive speed of 750 kph?

Or that the 109 has an advantage in rollrate, especially over the Hurricane? Or have you never heard of rolling scissors?

Ah, I see, you want the Luftwaffe to be able to dominate at all altitudes and against all British fighters? You want the Luftwaffe players to be able to do the dumb thing, get caught low and slow, but stil be able to escape?

Great playability... if you fly for the Luftwaffe.

And since CoD is actually advertised as a 'Simulation', I think we're owed a little historical accuracy.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Looking at the charts of similarly equiped MkI and MkIIs there are differences but in my opinion they are quite minor.

The following link shows a comparison between a late model MkIa and a MkIIa
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

Cheers

You are right about the performance, the difference is small. However the handling of Merlin III (Spitfire I) and Merlin XII (Spitfire II) is different.
E.g. Climb boost: Merlin III +6 1/4 vs. Merlin XII +9.

[fruitbat]

You are right about the performance, the difference is small. However the handling of Merlin III (Spitfire I) and Merlin XII (Spitfire II) is different.
E.g. Climb boost: Merlin III +6 1/4 vs. Merlin XII +9.

a 1000m higher service ceiling is a pretty big difference imo.

[Osprey]

I'm not even trying to deny your point. But Oleg himself (or Luthier, I don't remember), stated that some concessions were to be made in order to address playability.
So, having in mind that it is a videogame, not a documentary, it maybe requires some balance between forces that are not exactly historic.

I sincerely hope this is not true. I'm only interested in accuracy, not the game tweaking as we constantly saw with the last series.

If indeed the Spitfire and Hurricane proove miles better than the 109 and it 'unbalances' things then no doubt we'll just see half the Luftwaffe defect to the Allies because they were only in it for the big guns anyway.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Looking at the charts of similarly equiped MkI and MkIIs there are differences but in my opinion they are quite minor.

The following link shows a comparison between a late model MkIa and a MkIIa
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

Cheers

You know what? I don't think there is much difference between the 109E3 and 109E4, so why don't you tell Luthier to scrap his plans to add the E4?

The differences between the Spit I and Spit II are there, and additionally, the Spit II was not used till late in the Battle and in small numbers.

[Skoshi Tiger]

You know what? I don't think there is much difference between the 109E3 and 109E4, so why don't you tell Luthier to scrap his plans to add the E4?

The differences between the Spit I and Spit II are there, and additionally, the Spit II was not used till late in the Battle and in small numbers.

I rarely fly the Blue teams planes so thats a issue someone else can follow.

The way I see it is that maddox games decided that that there was going to be two Spitfires in the release so they chose a MkIIa that is very similar in performance to a late model MKI and an early model MkI with a 2 speed Prop. Both of which will cover a lot of senarios.

Extra planes would be good, but we didn't get 'em. Roll on the patches and expansion packs!

Flight models and performance are not perfect but they are within a range that for me is acceptable, especially if mission designer make use of the mechanical weathering to vary performance of individual planes (something I haven't even begun to look at yet)

The thread topic was that a 'Spit Ia should have a Constant speed Prop'. Unfortunately the designation system that they used changed several times leeading to a lot of confusion and there were MkI spitfires with 'a' wings and two speed props in the time period of the Battle of Britain (though not on the front line as far as I know) so it's inclusion is Ok by me.

Cheers!

[lane]

You are right about the performance, the difference is small. However the handling of Merlin III (Spitfire I) and Merlin XII (Spitfire II) is different.
E.g. Climb boost: Merlin III +6 1/4 vs. Merlin XII +9.

My understanding is that the Spitfire II with Merlin XII had somewhat better cruise power/max rich continuous than the Spitifire I with Merlin III: + 7 lb/sq.in. vrs 4 1/2 lb/sq.in. In other words the Spitfire II could continuous cruise at better than the Spitfire I's 5 minute all out boost limit of 6 1/4 lb/sq.in. (max emergency +12 excluded - which are the same). That's not insignificant in my view.

[lane]

Salute

The fact the game has the Spit IA with a two speed prop is completely in error.

I agree - as does other documentation I've seen that shaped my understanding, i.e. various unit histories, biographies and official Operations Record Books that can be found on-line.

[winny]

I rarely fly the Blue teams planes so thats a issue someone else can follow.

The way I see it is that maddox games decided that that there was going to be two Spitfires in the release so they chose a MkIIa that is very similar in performance to a late model MKI and an early model MkI with a 2 speed Prop. Both of which will cover a lot of senarios.

Extra planes would be good, but we didn't get 'em. Roll on the patches and expansion packs!

Flight models and performance are not perfect but they are within a range that for me is acceptable, especially if mission designer make use of the mechanical weathering to vary performance of individual planes (something I haven't even begun to look at yet)

The thread topic was that a 'Spit Ia should have a Constant speed Prop'. Unfortunately the designation system that they used changed several times leeading to a lot of confusion and there were MkI spitfires with 'a' wings and two speed props in the time period of the Battle of Britain (though not on the front line as far as I know) so it's inclusion is Ok by me.

Cheers!

I agree, if you want to be able to recreate Dunkirk of the latter stages of the Battle of France then the early Mk 1 makes total sense. Just because it wasn't still around by the end of June '40 dosn't mean it shouldn't be there.
This type of game is all about expansion and that works both ways, forwards and backwards in time.

I have no idea about the single player campaign in this game as I can't actually run it on my rig. What date does the campaign start?

[*Buzzsaw*]

I agree, if you want to be able to recreate Dunkirk of the latter stages of the Battle of France then the early Mk 1 makes total sense. Just because it wasn't still around by the end of June '40 dosn't mean it shouldn't be there.
This type of game is all about expansion and that works both ways, forwards and backwards in time.

I have no idea about the single player campaign in this game as I can't actually run it on my rig. What date does the campaign start?

I am not suggesting changing the propellor of the early Mk I, this thread is about the Mk IA which lacks both a constant speed propellor and +12 boost. It is doubly handicapped.

The fact is, there are three Spitfires at present. The Mk I and Mk IA are basically identically incorrect in performance, they currently duplicate each other in performance, this despite the fact the graphics on the Mk IA shows a constant speed propellor, as per the historical aircraft. The Mk IA has the graphics of a CSP aircraft, but not the performance.

As others have pointed out, the Spit II has significant differences in performance from the Spit I.

1) It climbed better, it had a higher ceiling. According to the British tests, it reached 25,000 ft one and a half minutes faster than the Spit I. That is a significant difference for an aircraft which had as its primary role bomber interception.

2) It was slower above 20,000, but faster under. Essentially very similar to the differences between the Spitfire IX LF and HF as far as speed goes.

3) It was slightly heavier than the Spit I, which would affect handling.

4) Diving limits were raised to 470 mph maximum from 450.


Plus for those of us who want to be able to design historically accurate scenarios, it is important to have the correct aircraft. Many servers in the original IL-2 insist on the same thing, when that happens, the RAF side would be penalized.

We don't want half baked, performance fudged Spitfires, we want the correctly modelled aircraft.

[winny]

I am not suggesting changing the propellor of the early Mk I, this thread is about the Mk IA which lacks both a constant speed propellor and +12 boost. It is doubly handicapped.

The fact is, there are three Spitfires at present. The Mk I and Mk IA are basically identically incorrect in performance, they currently duplicate each other in performance, this despite the fact the graphics on the Mk IA shows a constant speed propellor, as per the historical aircraft. The Mk IA has the graphics of a CSP aircraft, but not the performance.

As others have pointed out, the Spit II has significant differences in performance from the Spit I.

1) It climbed better, it had a higher ceiling. According to the British tests, it reached 25,000 ft one and a half minutes faster than the Spit I. That is a significant difference for an aircraft which had as its primary role bomber interception.

2) It was slower above 20,000, but faster under. Essentially very similar to the differences between the Spitfire IX LF and HF as far as speed goes.

3) It was slightly heavier than the Spit I, which would affect handling.

4) Diving limits were raised to 470 mph maximum from 450.


Plus for those of us who want to be able to design historically accurate scenarios, it is important to have the correct aircraft. Many servers in the original IL-2 insist on the same thing, when that happens, the RAF side would be penalized.

We don't want half baked, performance fudged Spitfires, we want the correctly modelled aircraft.

I see.. I have the same book. ( I got very lucky and found it in a charity shop for £5)

So it looks like a CSP but dosn't behave like one. Are you sure it is a CSP? And how do you tell the difference? (genuine question, not sarcastic.. just incase you start getting all spikey again...)

[41Sqn_Banks]

I see.. I have the same book. ( I got very lucky and found it in a charity shop for £5)

So it looks like a CSP but dosn't behave like one. Are you sure it is a CSP? And how do you tell the difference? (genuine question, not sarcastic.. just incase you start getting all spikey again...)

The spinner of the De Havilland (2-pitch or csp) and Rotol (csp) propeller look different.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/06/battle-of-britain-1940-constant-speed-propellers.html

http://spitfiresite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/1940-spitfire-propellers.jpg
still from 1940 newsreel showing a mixture of Rotol (recognisable by their blunt spinners) and de Havilland propellers employed on first-line Spitfires during the Battle.

[IvanK]

Devs have been informed directly of a number of issues (mechanisation and graphical) on relation to DH and ROTOL props on the Spitfires.
This includes the option of DH 2 pitch VP, DH CS props converted from 2 pitch. ROTOL CS props.

Hopefully where its going is this:

Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP
Spitfire IA DH CS
Spitfire IIA ROTOL CS (i.e. as it is now)

Engine differences between the Merlin III and Merlin XII, 100 Octane usage have been fully documented and are with the Devs.

As Jonsey says "Dont panic ... dont panic" :)

[winny]

The spinner of the De Havilland (2-pitch or csp) and Rotol (csp) propeller look different.


Thanks, for some reason I always associate the blunt ones with the wooden 2 blade prop.

[Kurfürst]

Hopefully where its going is this:

Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP
Spitfire IA DH CS
Spitfire IIA ROTOL CS (i.e. as it is now)

Sounds great. Mission builders should have the Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP for early war scenarios and the two other for BoB scenarios with CSUs.

Note: pilot armor was introduced to Spitfires at around mid-June 1940, there were none equipped so at the start of the Battle of France/Dunkerque, so optimally the 2-pitch ones should get a corresponding graphical and DM update (i.e. no armor).

Same goes to Hurricanes, iirc four Squadrons had pilot armor installed on 10 May 1940.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Devs have been informed directly of a number of issues (mechanisation and graphical) on relation to DH and ROTOL props on the Spitfires.
This includes the option of DH 2 pitch VP, DH CS props converted from 2 pitch. ROTOL CS props.

Hopefully where its going is this:

Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP
Spitfire IA DH CS
Spitfire IIA ROTOL CS (i.e. as it is now)

Engine differences between the Merlin III and Merlin XII, 100 Octane usage have been fully documented and are with the Devs.

As Jonsey says "Dont panic ... dont panic" :)

Great news. The inclusion of the variable pitch and CSU MkI's will really flesh out the Spitfire range and make a lot of people (including me) happy.

Hopefully a lot of the work has been done so we get our early Mk1's before we start needing MKV's!

Cheers!

[41Sqn_Banks]

Devs have been informed directly of a number of issues (mechanisation and graphical) on relation to DH and ROTOL props on the Spitfires.
This includes the option of DH 2 pitch VP, DH CS props converted from 2 pitch. ROTOL CS props.

Hopefully where its going is this:

Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP
Spitfire IA DH CS
Spitfire IIA ROTOL CS (i.e. as it is now)

Engine differences between the Merlin III and Merlin XII, 100 Octane usage have been fully documented and are with the Devs.

As Jonsey says "Dont panic ... dont panic" :)

Good news. Just a note that might have been overseen: according to pilot's notes general 2nd edition the 20° props (i.e. DH mod. to CSP) don't have enough pitch range and may cause to high rpm in a dive with very high speed. 35° props (i.e. Rotol) don't have that problem.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40498672/A-P-2095-Pilot-s-Notes-General-2nd-Edition-UK-1943

Page 44.

[skouras]

Salute

The fact the game has the Spit IA with a two speed prop is completely in error.

Yes, they INITIALLY came from the factory with the two speed prop, but this was changed starting in late June 1940 on orders from Fighter Command's Hugh Dowding.

"Spitfire: The History" by Eric B Morgan and Edward Shacklady is one of the most well respected sources for information on the Spitfire. The facts are detailed clearly in the chapter on the Spit I:

EDIT:

Unfortunately some anonymous person has complained to Image Shack that the images I posted were copyright, and they have been removed. I wonder who might be interested in censoring information which shows there should be an improvement in Spitfire performance... ;) In any case, anyone who wishes to know the facts regarding De Havilland's upgrade of the Spit I's propellors from two speed to Constant Speed only has to examine the book, pages 53, 54, 55, and 56.

To quote from the book:



(there is also a little info on 100 octane fuel, but the best material there is to be found in the original files)

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6159/42873216.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1821/82710803.jpg

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/6168/94305516.jpg

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1002/68176078.jpg

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4729/79585770.jpg

By the way, Kurfurst has already admitted he owns this book, yet he goes on about how the two speed props are appropriate...

ok first of all

the spitfire Ia back in time during the Battle of Britain had a
VARIABLE PITCH PROPELLER
The same EXACTLY THREE BLADE VARIABLE PITCH PROPELLER HAD and the IIa
The CONSTANT PITCH PROPELLER introduced to the SPITFIRE IIb model:-)
also what is going on with the antiallising anybody found any solution or what

[fruitbat]

ok first of all

the spitfire Ia back in time during the Battle of Britain had a
VARIABLE PITCH PROPELLER
The same EXACTLY THREE BLADE VARIABLE PITCH PROPELLER HAD and the IIa
The CONSTANT PITCH PROPELLER introduced to the SPITFIRE IIb model:-)
also what is going on with the antiallising anybody found any solution or what

rubbish.

[skouras]

rubbish.
so i'm wrong:rolleyes:
one good example is the A2A Spitfire with Accusim:-)

[fruitbat]

so i'm wrong:rolleyes:
one good example is the A2A Spitfire with Accusim:-)

by the time of the BoB yes you are.

dunkirk, yes, BoB no. in the Bob they were all constant speed, a mix of DH and Rotol.

by the way, only diff bewteen a b and an a is cannons, nothing else.

why don't you read some of the many links in this thread.

I'm looking at a spitfire test done at boscombe down in march 1940, in which the spit mk1 had a rotol prop, N3171, right now, which i take to be more accurate than your computer game ref material.

[skouras]

thanks mate for the info
you're right:-)
but if you want to find something more real and not a computer game go and fly the real one...so you can tell us the differences
i dont think that the main difference between the mk1 and mk2 was only the guns...other than that your info was very pleased thanks mate..