DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

Even the vast majority of 109s at the end of the war were still G6s.:music_whistling:

Actually, as of 31 January 1945, there were 71 G-6s, 431 medium altitude G-14s, 619 high altitude G-10/G-14AS and 314 K-4s in 1st line service.

 

I don't understand why you guys are arguing about 1943.

 

I don't understand why you are arguing about 'Force at 1st January 1944' when in the same document there is 'Force at 31st Jan 1944'. Nor do I understand what relevance that has to the period defined by Normandy and the Bf109K-4 (late 1944+).

 

I don't understand what the sudden jump to January 1945 has to do with those old arguments unless it is to point out that, according to Kurfursts figures, only 314 of 1435 Bf109s were K model, i.e. 22%, and a G model would have been more appropriate and given much more historical scope alongside the MkIX. As it is we have the K-4 introduced in October 1944 so perhaps we should have had the Spitfire XIV which was introduced in September 1944. But we don't. We have what we have (or will have).

 

You can juggle the variants as much as you like. ED are doing what they are doing.

You can juggle the variants as much as you like. ED are doing what they are doing.

That's the point. A historical debate on what model were where and when is fine in a historical background, but we have a simulator here with the modules we have and will have in a short run. May be even a what model should best fit the planeset to "level" is fine to a certain point (but what we already have won't change so...), even though I don't like the "leveling" thing. Even if the discussion were "did Luthier choose correctly the planeset", yes, definitely may be K4 shouldn't be there instead of a G14 or 10. May be highest numbered aircraft should be picked as representatives. He clearly chose the ultimate 109 thinking of wild Luftwhiners out there he met in past simulators so they couldn't complain about performances :music_whistling: while we have "regular" allied models. Even Dora can be discussed and perhaps an A8 would be better fitted, but not so clearly as K4 is though every folk here have their own taste for sure. But who cares off the historical discussion what model was in what number in what date as far as we have "no date" for our simulator.

 

 

And still... we don't even have the module yet... wait to have her until we can discuss what exact model variant we get and how it fits historically in what date against what we have. Right now we don't know really a half.

 

S!

 

And still... we don't even have the module yet... wait to have her until we can discuss what exact model variant we get and how it fits historically in what date against what we have. Right now we don't know really a half.

 

S!

Don't you think that when we will have the module, it will be too late for that kind of dicsussion and one could say "we have what we have, and you can't change a thing now"... So I think thats actually a very good time to have this discussion. And funny thing is I have some friends that said to me, when the 109 was out "if it was G I would buy it now... but K4? I'll wait for Normandy map first" So yeah... :P

Too bad for your friends, missing out on a fun plane, though this thread is for the Spitfire.

 

As for the variant being chosen, its pretty much set in stone now, its not changing. I would like to see more variants of all of them in the future, but for now, this is where we are at.

 

Is there a possibility that the Spitfire L.F. Mk. IXC we're now getting will have the options of bombs and/or a drop tank, or is that yet to be decided?

Why do you even participate if you do not read what other's say. Your attitude is horrible and I give you negative for that.:mad:

 

Tell, me why would I need to read stuff that is made on the fly, just to deny something that is so clearly stated in these old papers? When the evidence that was researched and shared literally gets repainted to give the 'proper' view? When the goalposts of the discussion just get changed to suit the agenda? I think that's a waste of time. A page of Shore's book gets posted, but I have read the book and I know exactly that a couple of pages prior to that Shores lists the entire order of battle and clearly states there were just two Squadrons with Mark IXB (ie. Mk IX LF) around in June 1943. So that gets ignored and the book is qouted selectively. Tell me why should discuss that kind of handling of historical work...?

 

I do read what others say, but when there is no point in doing so, I will just ignore it. Call my all my altitude whatever you wish, but I will stick to it and call it prudent. There is no good reasons to enter fruitless discussions about historical revisionism.

 

Now I am not a Spitfire enthusiast, so I may know way less, but Spit Mk IX was beeing produced since 1942 with various modifications along the way. So I would imagine that it has been the main Mk in production for 1943.

 

And that would be a reasonable to do based on the information available, and I have made the same mistake. But then I begun scratching the surface and found out about the actual delivery numbers of Mark IXLFs and that very few of them actually made it to Squadron service until the last quarter of 1943. The page that I posted from the air ministy shows that clearly.

 

The Mk IXF saw a bit more use as it was introduced earlier, but it still fel behind the Mark V until 1944.

 

 

I was wondering why that was so, why the RAF was relying for so long on the Mark Vs and kept them in service, even though they were clearly lacking in performance from 1942 the latest. One possible answer was that expanding Bomber Command took a toll on the number of available engine producing capacity, but reading a bit further on the troubles the Merlin 66 had clearly point towards that the engine simply wasn't ready and lacked the durability for wide scale operational service.

 

Our game is set in late 1944 Europe with Bf109K4 and Fw190D9 around, so that is very late 1944. So... naturally I would expect Spitfire MkIX LF with Merlin 66 and 25lbs boost as it will keep the Spit both competetive against those "wunderwaffe" and historically accurate as this setting was used by the RAF for many Spitfires in service.

 

Problem is, +25 lbs wasn't used until the spring of 1945 for operational service by 'many Spitfires'. As for 1944, only 2 Squadrons used for operational trials, but they did not saw much, if any action and they too switched back to +18 in the automn of 1944. This has been discussed to death and I see no need to re-iterate that fact further.

 

I don't think Spitfire MkV is in any way relevant for the time period of DCS.

 

On that I agreed and still agree.

Even if the discussion were "did Luthier choose correctly the planeset", yes, definitely may be K4 shouldn't be there instead of a G14 or 10. May be highest numbered aircraft should be picked as representatives. He clearly chose the ultimate 109 thinking of wild Luftwhiners out there he met in past simulators so they couldn't complain about performances :music_whistling: while we have "regular" allied models.

 

You already complain about the K-4 even if we have a low boosted variant of it. Nor do I get why miss the G-14 so much, at these altitude DCS dogfights go, it would probably better than the K-4, and the G-10 would be the same.

Difference is, there are a lot more and more detailed docs for the K-4 than any of these two. Have you seen G-10 performance curves? G-14? Manuals for them perhaps...? All that is available for the K-4..

 

I wonder if your logic applies to 'Raffanatics' and VEAO's choice upcoming ultimate Mark XIV - with +21 lbs boost, E-Wing and teardrop canopy. I cannot think of anything more rare yet more pleasing to Spitfire fans. :music_whistling:

 

Lets face it, über planes SELL, but whats there to complain about as long as they are the most accurate models available? Personally, I enjoy offline sessions with any of these more than and online dogfight in other sims, perceived überness or not.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Kurfürst

High boost (1.98ata) K-4s were a very small blip in history only appearing, maybe, in the last few weeks of the war in Europe.

 

What does June 1943 have to do with late 1944?:cry:

Don't you think that when we will have the module, it will be too late for that kind of dicsussion and one could say "we have what we have, and you can't change a thing now"... So I think thats actually a very good time to have this discussion. And funny thing is I have some friends that said to me, when the 109 was out "if it was G I would buy it now... but K4? I'll wait for Normandy map first" So yeah... :P

Not really, what I mean is,

 

As for the variant being chosen, its pretty much set in stone now, its not changing. I would like to see more variants of all of them in the future, but for now, this is where we are at.

We are here for a while Solty to know ED works looking for the best information they can get, and the variant choosen is already set. One thousand pages thread here won't change a bit, and we know that since ED told us how Spitfire got ahead of P-47 because the information found and the variant was chosen to be the LF one because they had more and better information on it. Do you really still think fighting in the forums will change ED work like that? And I don't mean only you but every folk here discussing dates, performance, variants, etc "that ED should do". ED will do what they think is the best with the info available they have no matter what we all say. And that doesn't pretend to be a ED critic as far as they have demonstrated how their work results in the best simulation we have to the date, I just point out how we already know ED works right now. As Sithspawn says, I would also like to see more variants in the future, of course I would and sure after the background work they're doing with current modules they'll be able to bring us a lot of variants even those they lack information. But that's only a desirable future not the current reality. So why discuss and fight about what can't be changed.

 

You already complain about the K-4 even if we have a low boosted variant of it. Nor do I get why miss the G-14 so much, at these altitude DCS dogfights go, it would probably better than the K-4, and the G-10 would be the same.

Difference is, there are a lot more and more detailed docs for the K-4 than any of these two. Have you seen G-10 performance curves? G-14? Manuals for them perhaps...? All that is available for the K-4..

 

I wonder if your logic applies to 'Raffanatics' and VEAO's choice upcoming ultimate Mark XIV - with +21 lbs boost, E-Wing and teardrop canopy. I cannot think of anything more rare yet more pleasing to Spitfire fans.

 

Lets face it, über planes SELL, but whats there to complain about as long as they are the most accurate models available? Personally, I enjoy offline sessions with any of these more than and online dogfight in other sims, perceived überness or not.

I understand what you mean, but I didn't complain about the K4, I just pointed probably the number criteria may better fit a historical battleground IMO, your opinion may be different of course. Anyway, if something has shown us DCS with their hardcore simulation is how far that sentence we all know is true when you play in a real world like DCS is, "it's the pilot who matters, not the machine". Of course K4 is a beast, as it was historically and ED never thought about changing that (something I really thank, and another milestone in simulation not trying to bias or "balance the game"), but it's pretty clear now how even a better machine can be defeated depending in initial conditions, energy, and pilot skills as we haven't see before. So even though I would like to see a better historical choice, I like it as it is right now and I don't feel K4 a so über plane albeit it is.

 

About the VEAO pick, well their first idea was an "airshow pack" featuring TFC planes and a Duxford area map. They have change the approach but kept the models, that's why they picked those models including the Spanish built Rolls Royce 109, built in 1956 and that never flew in combat against any other aircraft until the BoB 1968 film when they were saved from a scrapyard already disbanded from service. I don't say you're right, "über planes sell" because they do for many of us, but there's more reasons behind a choice and in this case planes and pilots info availability is a more probable reason than the über thought. Think on next P-40F VEAO module... it'll be slaughtered by 109... but they have a P-40F in TFC available.

 

S!

Edited November 18, 2015 by Ala13_ManOWar

 

 

 

 

 

 

(all pages from 2nd Tactical Airforce Volume One: Spartan to Normandy June 1943 to June 1944 Christopher Shores and Chris Thomas)

 

Ah ha! a few years ago (1980s) a friend of mine dug a hurricane out of a peat bog in Caithness near the Causeway Mire. It was involved with dissimilar air combat training with a spitfire from Castleton airfield when they collided.

 

The pilot of the Hurricane was from Norway and visited my friend to see the wreckage, the biggest bit of which was a slightly banana shaped Merlin engine, which apart from being bent from hitting the bedrock about 10m down in the peat, was in very good condition.

 

The spitfire managed to return to Castleton and was repaired and flew again.

 

The Hurricane remains were found during a survey for Fountain Forestry before they planted a new forest there.

If it carried it, its possible....

 

Right now, I am not sure what they are planing as far as ordnance.

 

I'm hoping for at least the option of bombs and drop tanks. Even if they are added later. Rockets I could do without (I believe they were only tested in 1945 anyway).

 

 

I wonder if your logic applies to 'Raffanatics' and VEAO's choice upcoming ultimate Mark XIV - with +21 lbs boost, E-Wing and teardrop canopy. I cannot think of anything more rare yet more pleasing to Spitfire fans. :music_whistling:

 

Lets face it, über planes SELL...

 

Heh heh, I must be something of a rarity then. Much as the raw power of the Griffon appeals slightly on a visceral, I'm not a fan of the later marks tbh. Low back, cluttered panel, twisty throttle grip, and a prop that rotates the wrong way - call that a "Spitfire"? :music_whistling:

 

Seriously though, I still reckon the IX is about the pinnacle of the Merlin'd Spits (just as well, as I'm building one, eh?) Under different circumstances the Griffon models may have been named differently too...

Actually, as of 31 January 1945, there were 71 G-6s, 431 medium altitude G-14s, 619 high altitude G-10/G-14AS and 314 K-4s in 1st line service.

And the G14 was pretty much just a renamed G6 variant :music_whistling:

Edited November 18, 2015 by GrapeJam

And the G14 was pretty much just a renamed G6 variant :music_whistling:

 

G-14 were still built to a standard with MW50, Erla canopy and the taller tailfin (As all seen in the K-4), even if some retrofitted/later G-6 variant was indistinguishable from one.

 

At the very least it's easier for discussion when someone says "G-14" rather than "late G-6"

 

E: OT over.

Edited November 18, 2015 by JST

And the G14 was pretty much just a renamed G6 variant :music_whistling:

 

Well, yes, the same way as the Mark IX is just a renamed Mark V, right?

Whether using the (by then, rather obsolate) available Mark V resources to the maximum an intentional choice (if so, outright crazy) decision or out of necessity because the Mk IX L.F. wasn't produced in sufficient numbers for the better part of 1943 (as it was the case) and/or because its Merlin 66 was still trouble plagued for the better part of 1943 at its increased boost and was too prone for failure to permit wider operational use (as it was the case) is, in the end a matter of historical interest and debate, but doesn't change a bit on the basic fact that the IX L.F. was simply wasn't an operational reality until 1944 for all practical purposes. By the the time it seen operational service that worth speaking of it was on the edge of becoming obsolete itself, since the fighters introduced parallel with it had become very considerably faster.

 

Phew! :blink: Judging by the breathless jumble of words, this is someone who wouldn't contemplate for a nano-second buying that horrible, obsolescent clunker of a Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX and that nasty, chronically unreliable Merlin 66, even if it is being modelled by DCS. That's just too bad, 'cos it should be a fun ride...8)

Edited November 19, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B
spelling

the biggest bit of which was a slightly banana shaped Merlin engine, which apart from being bent from hitting the bedrock about 10m down in the peat, was in very good condition.

 

Buff it right out you could have ran another 50 hours at +18lbs War Emergency Power!!!

 

:music_whistling:

Buff it right out you could have ran another 50 hours at +18lbs War Emergency Power!!!

 

:music_whistling:

 

Should be no problem if it was a 25lb boost Merlin running at 18lb boost.;)

Well, yes, the same way as the Mark IX is just a renamed Mark V, right?

 

Did the Mark V have the same engine, propeller, radiator system as the Mark IX as the late G6 and G14? :music_whistling:

Did the Mark V have the same engine, propeller, radiator system as the Mark IX as the late G6 and G14? :music_whistling:

 

Learn about them all, not just your favorite one. You will find out these aircraft have more in common than you thought.

 

 

:thumbup:

109_tech_doc.pdf

The Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 from A.P. 1590 P, S & U Merlin 66, 67, 70, 71, 76, 77 & 85 Maintenance Manual

 

 

 

Beautiful!! Cannot wait to get it!

Ooooooooo! Ta muchly! :D

 

Just what I am needing as I work on the interior of my spit-pit. She's looking good too.

Cockpit shots

 

:thumbup:

 

Not that interested in pure fighters, but this is an iconic aircraft and thus a must buy regardless. Looking spiffy indeed!