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

[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.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

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

Actually you're right - this pdf doesn't have the same content as it's German counterpart.
I was pretty sure it's same as in his book - obviously they only took parts of it and rearranged it for the mag..

Doesn't matter - I found it:

In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrablity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed and the worst height for its pilots to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915m).

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...3/m/1191005588

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by swiss

In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrablity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed and the worst height for its pilots to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915m).

I'm just looking at that link, looks good.

Just regarding acceloration though, this has been poorly written:
"From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration"
Now I don't doubt what he is saying, that the 190 can climb quicker when starting a climb from a high-speed cruise, but his English is not correct - that is not acceloration. If you are cruising at high-speed in a mid WWII plane, and adjust to climb at your maximum climb rate, you will slow down, not speed up.

[SturmKreator]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

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.

1.- LOL,spitfire ix only had advantage over 7600 meters, where the bmw engine lose performance, below that altitude, the fw190 had the same climb performance, could accelerated much more than the spitfire ix and was a bit more fast. Www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org rates are very selective when it comes to performance tables, they are pro allies and love airplanes like spitsfires and mustangs, so I believe nothing of what they publish, it is best to book information research rather than a couple of stupid that they think is right.

Quoted from a book: Comparasion fligths between an fw190 a-3 and a spitfire ix HF showd the fw190 to have a minor advantaje between 600 and 5500 meters; from about 7600 meters upward the spitfire was faster. The climb rate for both machines was equal to about 7600 meters. At that point the fw190 began lagging considerably behind the spitfire. Diving and turning were the same as for the spitfire VB comparasion. Kurt Tank Focke-Wulfs Designer and Test Pilot

As we could see both machines are totally equaled. We are a talking about only a fw 190 a3, not late machines, who had an increased performance.

2.-Fw190 d-9 inmediatly was a succes becouse, at military power could reach 686 km/h and for ten minutes could reach the maximun top speed with mw50 increasing the 1776hp to 2240 hp, the top speed was 730km/h, acceleration and impressive flight characteristics were.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

1.- LOL

Grow up. If you have some relevant information to post, let's see it. I was replying to a post suggesting the Spit took forever to pick up speed, and I can't see evidence of that. So you think the wwiiperformance site it biased towards allied planes - what evidence do you have of that? The data they quote in from serious militarty testing, not from propaganda. But anyway, you have some other site with good research, I'd be interested to see that too.

spitfire ix only had advantage over 7600 meters, where the bmw engine lose performance, below that altitude, the fw190 had the same climb performance, could accelerated much more than the spitfire ix and was a bit more fast.

Well Swiss has just posted another link which says "the German fighter was 7-8mph (11-13km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8mph (13km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2440 m) and 5 mph (8km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4570 m)"
So that's not 7600 metres, that's 1525 metres. You're getting 7600 metres because you're looking at the H.F. model, which was specifically designed for high altitude flight. So a Spitfire designed specifically for high altitude flight (ceiling height of about 45 thousand feet) has a minor disadvantage to an FW 190 below 5500 metres. Ok, maybe you didn't realise what H.F. meant, no big deal.

Fw190 d-9 inmediatly was a succes becouse, at military power could reach 686 km/h and for ten minutes could reach the maximun top speed with mw50 increasing the 1776hp to 2240 hp, the top speed was 730km/h, acceleration and impressive flight characteristics were.

I think the D9 was an excellent fighter. If you have some good data on it's performance vs a late war Spit that would make interesting reading. Particularly if there were enough D9s in the air to make a difference to the war, becuase if not, there's very little reason for the allies to need to compete with it.

[winny]

BoB Spit vs 109 arguments are always hard to nail...

Let's not forget that it was a very fluid time in development terms and features were added as they were produced. The germans knew what their advantages were which is why they would attack, dive away climb back up and try again, very few would deliberatley enter into a turning fight (except the aces who knew they could beat Spitfires any way).

That's the thing, too many German aces said they could easily beat Spitfires.
It's been said that a great pilot couldn't get much more out of a Spit than an average pilot because it was so easy to fly, whereas a great german pilot could get a lot more out of the 109 than an average pilot could. Use of the slats to deliberatly stall the plane to escape a Spitfire seem quite comon among the German Aces from what I've read, along with a few other 'tricks' that only the top men could perform.

It will be interesting to see how the diving away tactic works in CoD, depends on how much speed is lost when the Spit engine cuts, if it's realistic there are going to be a few frustrated Spitfire pilots about.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by winny

Use of the slats to deliberatly stall the plane to escape a Spitfire seem quite comon among the German Aces from what I've read

I'd like to read this book, never seen it before

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Grow up. If you have some relevant information to post, let's see it. I was replying to a post suggesting the Spit took forever to pick up speed, and I can't see evidence of that. So you think the wwiiperformance site it biased towards allied planes - what evidence do you have of that? The data they quote in from serious militarty testing, not from propaganda. But anyway, you have some other site with good research, I'd be interested to see that too.

Believing that site, nothing made by the Germans could ever compete with anything British or American. Funny enough, there are very little graphs of early war aircraft. In charts comparing axis vs. allied, there are also no conditions of tests mentioned.

You get better idea of relative performance by reading a good book or 2 of each plane and how they actually met in combat, and compare factory tests(and their conditions), not tests done on half broken stressed airframes that ran an overdue engine with a wooden prop, and of results' would then be used in propaganda and/or post-war publications. Applying to both/all sides, not just Allies.

I think the D9 was an excellent fighter. If you have some good data on it's performance vs a late war Spit that would make interesting reading. Particularly if there were enough D9s in the air to make a difference to the war, becuase if not, there's very little reason for the allies to need to compete with it.

D-9 was the single most produced model of the Fw 190.