I Want my 4.09 Spit FM's back.........

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Lol you surly dont know that Spits due to thier wing desing had higher mach number reached in dive then even P-51 or P-47

Sure, but it takes them forever to build up speed.

[lane]

Originally Posted by swiss

Sure, but it takes them forever to build up speed.

According to the dive chart posted above it took 36.4 seconds to reach Mach .891 from 274 mph TAS ; that isn’t exactly forever. The AFDU did note, however, in comparing the Mustang III and Spitfire IX that “The Mustang III pulls away very rapidly in a slight dive.” It only stands to reason that eventually - evidently in about half a minute, the Spitfire IX would gain on the Mustang.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by lane

According to the dive chart posted above it took 36.4 seconds to reach Mach .891 from 274 mph TAS ; that isn’t exactly forever. The AFDU did note, however, in comparing the Mustang III and Spitfire IX that “The Mustang III pulls away very rapidly in a slight dive.” It only stands to reason that eventually - evidently in about half a minute, the Spitfire IX would gain on the Mustang.

Oh, ok.
Sure, the spit is best fighter ever built.
Turns better, outdives, and of course outruns any plane on the planet.

The holy grail of aircraft construction.


edit:
http://www.flightjournal.com/Media/M...ger/fw-190.pdf
nice read about the 190, he mentions the Spit 9 too.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by swiss

Oh, ok.
Sure, the spit is best fighter ever built.
Turns better, outdives, and of course outruns any plane on the planet.

The holy grail of aircraft construction.


edit:
http://www.flightjournal.com/Media/M...ger/fw-190.pdf
nice read about the 190, he mentions the Spit 9 too.

Dont forget the magic elliptic antigravitation. War winning stuff.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Quote from “Gun Button to Fire” (Tom Neil – passage refers to May 1940…so Mk1)

“I forced down the nose and watched the speed rise rapidly – 300, then 350, finally 400. Everything tight and the starboard wing dropping. Hard left aileron now – it must be the radiator under one wing. I trimmed forward…..more, then more, working the rudder bias at the same time. God, I had never been so fast! 430!”

Interesting! This was his first flight in a Spitfire.

Nicholaiovitch

Edit:- Dive was started at 8000ft.

[SEE]

Such sceptiscm and sarcasm! .......I suppose, that despite the evidence in the video, that the early spits could fly inverted for longer than is currently modelled (without the engine dying and spluttering) is going to be challenged as MOD propaganda rather than genuine attempts to correct FM errors.

[Rainmaker]

Originally Posted by swiss

Sure, but it takes them forever to build up speed.

I agree with you, but they will tell you, "you are wrong" or "you are luftwhiner"

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Please make Spitfire wings breakable in high speed dive. And its unrealistic and inpossible to see Spitfire following FW-190 or P-47 or P-51 in the high speed dive without breaking wings. The reason is: Spitfire got HUGE wings and cannons sticking out of it.

So the reason you give is that it has HUGE wings and cannons. Not because you have any engineering understanding, or because you have read anywhere that their wings came off in high speed dives.

Originally Posted by swiss

Sure, but it takes them forever to build up speed.

Which model, and do you mean when diving, and compared to what?

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

I agree with you, but they will tell you, "you are wrong" or "you are luftwhiner"

Well if you make false statements with no evidence to backup your biased opinions, of course you're going to get criticised.

The Spitfire had disadvantages from some respects, like it didn't have a lot of ammunition, and it didn't have the range of fighters like the P51. But it was an excellent fighter. If you can find some documentation to show otherwise, let's see it. Or even the odd pilot account of it being below par would be a start.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Which model, and do you mean when diving, and compared to what?

Spit vs same generation 190.

btw, read the attached pdf

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by swiss

Sure, but it takes them forever to build up speed.

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Which model, and do you mean when diving, and compared to what?

Originally Posted by swiss

Spit vs same generation 190.

btw, read the attached pdf

I read the 190 pdf when you posted it and it doesn't back up your point at all. The 190 was a great fighter, my favourite looking WWII aircraft, and it was superior to the Spit Mk V, we all know that. But the Spit mkV was out before the 190, and as soon as the RAF met the 190 in the air they stuck a bigger engine in the Spit (giving the mk IX) which was immediately superior to the 190.
According to http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/fw190a5.html
the mk IX (1942) was as fast as the 190 A5 (1943), and easily outclimbed and out manouevered it (despite the 190s superior roll rate).

So your evidence of the Spitfire taking forever to build up speed, is a pdf that says nothing of the sort.

As with the 109, the 190 had other things going for it, like its great roll rate, impressive firepower, good dive speed etc. If you were at altitude in a 190, this meant you had a good chance of rolling and diving away when in trouble.

Later versions of the 190 continued to get faster, but the pdf you linked to doesn't show direct comparison with the Spitfire (he says the D9 was one of his favourites, along with the Spit XIV, P51D IV etc), but instead points out that the Germans had a shortage of pilots and fuel.