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

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I'm not questioning the SpitIX's birth. Simply I think that engineering industry (engines, materials ect) always works for improvements and of course during wartime the improvements are researched very quickly (with problems of durability and safety, like you say the matter is to win the war).

Why did the DB use the fuel injection? Why was the Me262 drawn up in 1939? The war was almost ended but P51Hs, P47Ms, P80s were to be used by the Air Force: weren't the P51Ds and P47Ds enough to win the war?

Essentially you re both correct - there has always been a pre-emptive drive to produce more powerful engines, faster aeroplanes, with better rates of climb and more firepower well ahead of any direct reaction to the enemies technological advancement; given the rate of developments (2-3 years even back then) for an engine airframe, you couldn't do otherwise else if all you did was react to the technological advancement of your enemy you'd lose the battle very quickly. Take the Fw190 for example. That 1st flew well before any Bf109 met a Spitfire in combat.

What tended to happen particularly in the British industry was that a technology being developed focusing on a different aspect of the air war or already in development, was found to be suitable to solve an immediate problem with another, or the development was accelerated to get that technology into service as fast as possible. Take the Mk IX, for which this analogy applies on both counts.

The Merlin 60 series was actually designed for powering high altitude bomber designs, but it's much improved output and the fact it would give the Spitfire such a performance boost in light of the then Focke-Wulf ascendancy dictated that it was given priority in this arena.

The Mk IX then is a reactionary a/c in this respect - it's a Mk V with the minimum modifications required to take the new engine. However the technology behind it is of a far more measured and pre-emptive development.

Similarly the Griffon. The Mk IV - later to become the MK XII - first flew in 1941 before the 190 threat was properly understood, but given that in it's early variants the Griffon's high altitude performance was lacking at a time when fighting took place from 20,000ft up it was something of a white elephant. However, they do become useful against the low-level tip and run raiders - tho this is more a case of it fortuitously being available and a suitable answer to an enemies tactics.

Until the two-stage supercharger comes in and we get the Mk XIV (another stop-gap by the way, essentially a Mk VIII with the minimum required modifications to take the Griffon 60 series) then we see a superbly performing fighter at all altitudes.

So unlike the Mk IX, the Griffon Spit's weren't a direct reaction to a particular technology crisis but indicative if the all encompassing urge to go faster, higher, get there faster and kill stuff quickly that drives all a/c development.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

maybe i misunderstood why you were saying it.

Reading it again I'm not even sure myself

The fact is that there are people on both sides of the fence that think their favourite aircraft is better than the opponents, and we can't all be right. So there will be comments from both sides that are not accurate.

This thread started with a complaint that the Spit is not as good as it was in an earlier version, and some replies saying that's just as well, as it was like a UFO. Lots of aircrafts have different advantages. I didn't know about the La7 or Yak3 before IL2 (did someone say forgotten battles?), but they're held in the highest regard in lots of books. So the Spits, 109s and FW190s have their own advantages. My personal view is that the i16 was overmodelled in IL2, and the Hurricane undermodelled. I had much more success in the i16 against 109s than I could ever have in the Hurricane, but I'm lead to believe the i16 was really outclassed in the war, and the Brits gave the Russians Hurricanes which actually performed pretty well against the 109. In the BoB the Hurricane could out-turn a Spitfire, and wasn't much slower than a 109. I could easily be wrong about the i16, that's just an opinion I've formed from the odd book.

Forum newbies always start by asking which was the best fighter of the war, and it's no bad thing that there's no one answer. There are too many factors to take into account, like what height a fight is at (no point having the best high altitude fighter defending/attacking low altitude bombers), range, armament, inteception capabilities etc. I still find the comparisons interesting though.

One of the best things about the 190 was the ability to choose whether or not to fight. If you weren't being bounced by someone above, you had a good chance of being able to run. Some of our servers use this advantage, but many don't have the patience and they're then suprised when they can't out dogfight an allied plane that they think is inferior. The more evidence we can find about how these old war birds flew, the better as far as I'm concerned.

What i was trying to convey is that the FM is the FM and it's not dependent on the competition's FM.

Yes, understood, thanks.

Originally Posted by JtD

The Tilly Orifice reduced the fuel flow to the amount of fuel needed at maximum power - 12/16 lb of boost and 3000 rpm. At that power setting, the engine would not cut out in sustained inverted flight due to flooding.

Unfortunately it's rather difficult to model the physical difficulties associated with flying under negative G for extended periods, so I think this is a tactic used by 109s more in IL2 than in real life. Pushing the nose down (for negative G rather than to dive) happens a lot in IL2, but doesn't seem to be talked about as a common fail safe from real pilots.
EDIT - I'm going to have to take that back. It seems there is plenty of evidence of 109 pilots dippint their nose, with Hurricane and Spitfire pilots having to roll onto their back to follow.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

What tended to happen particularly in the British industry was that a technology being developed focusing on a different aspect of the air war or already in development, was found to be suitable to solve an immediate problem with another, or the development was accelerated to get that technology into service as fast as possible. Take the Mk IX, for which this analogy applies on both counts.

I agree. It seems Germany made plans for war before everyone else