Spitfire Aircraft Variants

I have had some questions about aircraft variants.

First, we are getting the Spitfire Mk. IX. Will this be the LF Mk. IX with the clipped wings or with the regular rounded wingtips? Which wing type will it have? The C wing with 2x 20mm w/120rpg and the 4x .303 Brownings? Or the E wing with the 2x 20mm and 2x .50 Brownings? Also, which version of the Merlin engine will this Spitfire have? The 60, 63 or 66? The 63 was a better engine as it had an improved carburettor, and the 66 better still. (from Wikipedia) We should probably get the 63 or 66, as they are better suited to the 1944 time period.I hope we are getting the high-backed version with the Malcolm Hood type canopy and rounded wings as VEAO's Mk. XIV will be the clipped wing bubble canopy version (which is too bad as the Mk. XIV with the high back is my favourite Spitfire). Will we get the Gyro gunsight Mk. II? The Spitfire did have it from early 1944 and on, and it is the American K-14 in the P-51 is the exact same sight, just the American copy version, so it should be easy to implement. And finally, what tail type will the DCS Mk. IX be? The early or the more pointed late version?

Sorry for all these questions, but the Spitfire is my favourite aircraft, and I would really like to know what variant of the Mk. IX we are getting.

Thanks

flare

For a post D-Day 2 TAF scenario the only choice is the L.F Mk. IX with the low-medium altitude rated Merlin 66:

For a post D-Day 2 TAF scenario the only choice is the L.F Mk. IX with the low-medium altitude rated Merlin 66

Yes, but the LF Mk. IX had a bubble top and clipped wings. I'd prefer the round winged high back Spitfire with the Merlin 63 so I can dish it out with the Jerries at Angels 30.

flare

Yes, but the LF Mk. IX had a bubble top and clipped wings. I'd prefer the round winged high back Spitfire with the Merlin 63 so I can dish it out with the Jerries at Angels 30.

 

flare

Bubble tops were not that common on IXs. More common on XVIs.

Clipped wings were a late war thing commonly found on all versions. They were not exclusive to LF models and not all LF's had them.

DCS will probably model the most typical variant, which would be the Mark IX with a Merlin 66 medium-low altitude engine with +18 lbs boost. Gun sight would be the normal revi, as the GGS was use was atypical compared to the USAAF Mustang and was used only by a small number of fighter squadrons. If DCS considers a very late war scenario, perhaps a +25 lbs variant, as some Squadrons might have used this trouble plagued boost in the last months of the war. It would give the poor old bugger some chance, at least.

There should be however the ability to mount fuselage and wing bombs racks, albit for smaller sized 250/500 lbs bombs only, as the semi-obsolate Mark IX was increasingly used for risky ground attack duties. There should be also an option to clip the wing, which would improve roll rate as well - recoveries after dive bombing often wing deformation on the Spit, which tendency was reduced by wing clipping. Teardrop canopy is also basically a non common item.

Dishing out with Jerries at angels 30 might be a problem with the Mark IX, as (largely due to its superior aerodynamics) the late war 109K would cruise faster than you can speed at full throttle with the Mark IX. The best tactical option would be to stay at low altitudes where the Merlin can still compete - or better still, a P-47.

Sith said in another post that it is going to be the +25 lbs boost iirc

Please guys, no boost or fuel wars this time. :)

Would love to see some screens of Spit but i guess we'll have to wait quite some time for them...

What's the release plan for the spit anyways? November - december ? In any case, whatever variant we get I will happy with it, it would be nice to try a real serious FM at last... that goes for all planes.

In any case, whatever variant we get I will happy with it, it would be nice to try a real serious FM at last... that goes for all planes.

Indeed, thats what i'm also waiting most from DCS:WW2.

December is being quoted, but with absolutely no WIP shots of the bird being published whatsoever, I wouldn't count on it. It seems that other planes are in further stages of development.

The best tactical option would be to stay at low altitudes where the Merlin can still compete - or better still, a P-47.

Your logic seems bizarre. If it's a late war scenario (April 44 -->) surely the best 'tactical option' would be a Tempest V? Then the 109s really are the 'poor old buggers' :music_whistling:

Your logic seems bizarre. If it's a late war scenario (April 44 -->) surely the best 'tactical option' would be a Tempest V?

I guess he meant from planeset that will be available in DCS:WW2

Then the 109s really are the 'poor old buggers' :music_whistling:

Not if dogfight happened under 500km/h or over 5000 meters ;)

DCS will probably model the most typical variant, which would be the Mark IX with a Merlin 66 medium-low altitude engine with +18 lbs boost. Gun sight would be the normal revi, as the GGS was use was atypical compared to the USAAF Mustang and was used only by a small number of fighter squadrons. If DCS considers a very late war scenario, perhaps a +25 lbs variant, as some Squadrons might have used this trouble plagued boost in the last months of the war. It would give the poor old bugger some chance, at least.

 

There should be however the ability to mount fuselage and wing bombs racks, albit for smaller sized 250/500 lbs bombs only, as the semi-obsolate Mark IX was increasingly used for risky ground attack duties. There should be also an option to clip the wing, which would improve roll rate as well - recoveries after dive bombing often wing deformation on the Spit, which tendency was reduced by wing clipping. Teardrop canopy is also basically a non common item.

 

Dishing out with Jerries at angels 30 might be a problem with the Mark IX, as (largely due to its superior aerodynamics) the late war 109K would cruise faster than you can speed at full throttle with the Mark IX. The best tactical option would be to stay at low altitudes where the Merlin can still compete - or better still, a P-47.

DB605, if Kurfurst didn't post his revisionist history there would be no reason for the boost/fuel discussions.;)

There was more GGS gun sights built (~6800) than there was Spitfire IXs/XVIs built (3971/1054). The GGS certainly weren't gathering dust in some obscure warehouse.

Yes as semi-obsolete as the ex trainer G-6s that II./JG53 had.

"on 23 April the unit had four Bf 109 G-6s, on 24 April this figure had already risen to 32 Bf 109 G-6s, of which none where servicable, however"

I guess he meant from planeset that will be available in DCS:WW2

ah I see...that makes much more sense!

Not if dogfight happened under 500km/h or over 5000 meters ;)

Wikipedia: "In air-to-air combat, the Tempest units achieved an estimated air combat success ratio of 7:1, accomplishing a 6:1 ratio against single seat enemy fighters".

High or low, fast or slow, I'll take those odds any day ;)

ah I see...that makes much more sense!

 

 

 

Wikipedia: "In air-to-air combat, the Tempest units achieved an estimated air combat success ratio of 7:1, accomplishing a 6:1 ratio against single seat enemy fighters".

 

High or low, fast or slow, I'll take those odds any day ;)

Tempest was great fighter, no doubt about it.

But please also note that when Tempest entered to service, there was only handful of Experten left in Luftwaffe. Rest of them were green pilots with only few hours of combat flying (if all) and poor training. It did not matter much wich plane they were flying, or against.

Pierre Clostermann, Tempest ace himself wrote that he did keep warning his pilots to NOT enter dogfights against 109's under 500km/h where Messerschmitts turn better or over 5000 meters because 109 had better performance over that height.

Hmmm i would like to see a Griffon engined one.......Somehow. :)

Tempest was great fighter, no doubt about it.

But please also note that when Tempest entered to service, there was only handful of Experten left in Luftwaffe. Rest of them were green pilots with only few hours of combat flying (if all) and poor training. It did not matter much wich plane they were flying, or against.

 

Pierre Clostermann, Tempest ace himself wrote that he did keep warning his pilots to NOT enter dogfights against 109's under 500km/h where Messerschmitts turn better or over 5000 meters because 109 had better performance over that height.

Fair points - of course you try to fight to the strengths of your own aircraft. And as it's 1944 and the Allies are now the aggressors, it will be easier for the RAF to drag the defending 109s + 190s down to where the Tempests prefer to play....

Gun sight would be the normal revi, as the GGS was use was atypical compared to the USAAF Mustang and was used only by a small number of fighter squadrons.

I disagree about the GGS. It was standard from early 1944 on.

Sith said in another post that it is going to be the +25 lbs boost iirc

But is this the Merlin 63 or 66. I'm hoping for a 63, but it appears not? The 66 was actually the most used engine in the Mark IX.

From Wikipedia

Production of the LF Mk IXs, frequently referred to as the Spitfire IXB, initially ran in parallel with the Merlin 63 powered Marks. This version first became operational in March 1943 with the Biggin Hill Wing, comprised at the time of 611 and 341(Free French) Squadrons. This type was by far the most produced of the Spitfire IX variants, with over 4000 built. The maximum power of the Merlin 66 was 1,720 hp (1,280 kW) at 5,750 ft (1,283 kW at 1,752 m) and the maximum speed of the Spitfire LF IX was 404 mph (650 km/h) at 21,000 feet (6,400 m).

Whatever. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

flare

I disagree about the GGS. It was standard from early 1944 on.

Definietely not - out of all Spitfire squadrons, only about 10 were more or kedd equipped with the new sight by mid 1944. It took a while, and it never became a 'standard' fit during the war - a lot pictures of late war spitfires still show the old revi sight.

In any case the IX had a fairly long nose because of the two stage Merlin, which blocked a lot of the sighting view which was fairly poor. Interestingly the Griffon Spits were better in this regard since the engine mount was lower.

Number of GGS produced.

1944

February: 8

March: 110

April: 200

May: 250

June: 370

July: 380

August: 420

September: 540

October: 700

November: 720

December: 600

1945

February: 400

March: 1,000

April: 1,100

Number of GGS produced.

 

1944

 

February: 8

March: 110

April: 200

May: 250

June: 370

July: 380

August: 420

September: 540

October: 700

November: 720

December: 600

 

1945

 

February: 400

March: 1,000

April: 1,100

So in 1944 they built 2948 gunsights. And in 1944 they built approx. 2160 Spitfire IX's. Thats more than enough sights for the Spits, and quite a few left over for other types. (Tempest/Typhoon)

So in 1944 they built 2948 gunsights. And in 1944 they built approx. 2160 Spitfire IX's. Thats more than enough sights for the Spits, and quite a few left over for other types. (Tempest/Typhoon)

Be sure. :thumbup: But some would have us believe that the sights went straight from the manufacturer to some out of the way storage depot to gather dust.

Be sure. :thumbup: But some would have us believe that the sights went straight from the manufacturer to some out of the way storage depot to gather dust.

But why would the RAF want to waste perfectly good sights that were a lot better than the current static gunsights?

PS I think the Spit should get the Mk. II Gyro sight as the Mustang and Dora have gyro sights already in DCS so shouldn't the Spit have it too? It still is historically accurate.

Personally i don't care about gyro gunsight. I'm too used to old school fixed one, i always use fixed when dogfighting against Dora with Mustang.