Spitfire XVI

I appreciate that ED have already spent a good deal of time time on the IX and I would rather see a XIV, Typhoon or Tempest.

But I was just wondering given the changes are only the Merlin 266 which is an American manufactured Merlin 66, the armament of an IXe wing and the addition of the tear drop canopy would there be that great an impact to the flight characteristics of what we already have modelled for the IX?

At this point, I would only like to see aircraft that historically participated during the battle/theater of the map(s).

At this point, I would only like to see aircraft that historically participated during the battle/theater of the map(s).

Fair enough, I think it was around for D-day or not soon after.

XVIs start appearing at the front in September/October '44 - but in traditional high back form only.

Tear drop hooded Merlin engined Spits really only start to appear in 1945 during the final month or two of the war.

The 'e' armament was being applied to Mk.IX a/c pre-D-Day; Spitfires with this armament were used operationally over Normandy firstly by 136 Wing of 84 Group, 2nd TAF who had re-equipped by D-Day and then by 131, 134, 145 and 132 Wings also of 84 group plus 125 Wing of 83 Group who received their 'e' wing aircraft from mid-June to July.

However, a significant number of IXc types were still in frontline service at wars end.

Good to know, thanks Fenrir.

A pity I really like the low back looks.

I did think that the mk14 included the change to the bigger heavier and significantly more powerful Griffin engine, and I’d expect that to result in changes to the flight model.

I did think that the mk14 included the change to the bigger heavier and significantly more powerful Griffin engine, and I’d expect that to result in changes to the flight model.

spit MKXIV had much worse turning proformance then MKIX that is one of couple reasons why MKIX kept flying till the end of war

another reason was that girffon was about 3 times less durable then merlin

Mk.XIV = 14 = Rolls Royce Griffon

Mk.XVI = 16 = Packard Merlin

We are discussing the latter.

Much worse turning performance on the XIV? No, slightly degraded in comparison to the IX and still better than either the 109 or 190

me109 was very close to spit in turning rate even mkV which was better turner then MKIX was better then but not far far better then me109 in turning rate

and mkIVX suffer enough that was behind bf109 but was much faster then bf109

griffon spit were crazy fast.

between me109 and spit was alwayes very close in turn ration in favor of spit

Fw190 is completly difrent story

as far as i know spit XVI was low altitude fighter with single stage supercharger

well piloted bf109 can out turn poorly piloted spit for 100% no question about it

when 150 octane fuel was introduced mkIVX could run 25lbs of boost giving about 400mph top speed at low alt bf109 k4 could only smell exaust gases heh :P

when ED decide to make this warbird in to DCS i will buy it 1000000% 25lbs griffon that what i like

25lbs MKIX spit would be great too

75inHg p-51 would be nice too

We need those 150 octane version becouse 99% of fights in DCS is at low alt and at low altitude 150 fuel give most benefits increasing top speed 10-20mph at deck would be enormous change

Chaps, asking for the Spitfire XIV, expecting it to somehow redress the online balance is misguided IMO. By the time the XIV was in regualr service (operaintg from bases in continental weurope) the Me262 was about also - guess what all the chaps are going to be flying online?

This ever-present need from combat flight simmers to want the "best" aircraft is a road on a hiding to nothing.

I'd far rather have a historically-cohesive co-hort of aicraft ,say, the Autumn to winter 1943-44 pre-invasion planeset.

18lb Spit IX, FW190 A8, Bf109G6 etc...

Even if this means that I'm not getting the "best" or fastest of my favaourite type.

Chaps, asking for the Spitfire XIV, expecting it to somehow redress the online balance is misguided IMO. By the time the XIV was in regualr service (operaintg from bases in continental weurope) the Me262 was about also - guess what all the chaps are going to be flying online?

 

 

This ever-present need from combat flight simmers to want the "best" aircraft is a road on a hiding to nothing.

 

 

I'd far rather have a historically-cohesive co-hort of aicraft ,say, the Autumn to winter 1943-44 pre-invasion planeset.

18lb Spit IX, FW190 A8, Bf109G6 etc...

Even if this means that I'm not getting the "best" or fastest of my favaourite type.

Why not both? :music_whistling:

The servers have to decide how to make this balanced.

Some slot blocking scripts to make sure the best versions don't get selected all the time would come to mind.

Why not both? :music_whistling:

The servers have to decide how to make this balanced.

Some slot blocking scripts to make sure the best versions don't get selected all the time would come to mind.

Why not both?

Because this is DCS we are talking about. Both a 1943 and a late 1944 planeset would be 10 years away. A "little bit of each" would be the result.

As with other sims, the servers that limit types and don't have the "latest" available machines are going to suffer for player numbers. Any server operator knows this.

I do agree though that some server owners would think about limiting the plane-set mixes to better reflect historical ratios - but there seems very little appetite to do that currently (i.e. restricting MW50 in some way) . .

I wasn't asking for the XIV in this thread only the XVI, really I was just wondering about what differences the low back tear drop canopy of the last build IX and XVI had on the flight characteristics.

At this point, I would only like to see aircraft that historically participated during the battle/theater of the map(s).

i hear u, but personally i wouldnt like to see this limited to such a degree...meaning, that while i wouldnt like to have a zero developed right now, and fly over normandy with it, i wouldnt have any problem with any spit variant that still saw service in ww2, over normandy or any other european map.

the normandy map we have right now, would look the same(almost) if it was labeled Channel 1942 map, and the airfields are not correct for 1944 to begin with either....besides we do know that 2more maps are in development as we speak...

Why not both?

Because this is DCS we are talking about. Both a 1943 and a late 1944 planeset would be 10 years away. A "little bit of each" would be the result.

doesnt have to be like that though. yo-yo was speaking about the time span a warbirds actually takes to develop in one interview. assuming that he wasnt trying to be overly optimistic, the current development time could be drastically shortened if there was a dedicated ww2 team focusing solely on the warbirds.

if there was a dedicated ww2 team focusing solely on the warbirds.

Not necessarily a bad idea, taken into account that WW2 is the most popular conflict among the CFS crowd. Nah, junk all that WW2 carp and concentrate on Korea plz ;)

I wasn't asking for the XIV in this thread only the XVI, really I was just wondering about what differences the low back tear drop canopy of the last build IX and XVI had on the flight characteristics.

I am not expert but i can tell you that tear drop cannopy create little more drag those expected lower top speed and maby a little bigger pitch up tendency. that what i can tell

about turning abbilities i would gues that change in fligh characteristic is very very minor

But again first version of MK IX and last version of MKIX were so difrent incluyding numerous aerodynamic improvments engine improvments 150 octane fuel propeler improvments simply its is almost impossible to compare those planes based only cannopy designe.

probably its inpossible to isolate cannopy involvment in change of flight characteristics

MK IX would perform wors that MKXVI at low hight becouse lower thorttling loses + probably lower weight(much simpler supercharging system)

Graf, I don't know where you get the idea that the Packard Merlin 266 was single stage supercharged, but you are misinformed - it is identical in format to the Rolls-Royce Merlin 66, it is two step supercharged with intercooler. The only differences were the manufacturing tolerances and dimensions and - if I recall correctly - some of the ancillaries might have been juggled about.

Graf, I don't know where you get the idea that the Packard Merlin 266 was single stage supercharged, but you are misinformed - it is identical in format to the Rolls-Royce Merlin 66, it is two step supercharged with intercooler. The only differences were the manufacturing tolerances and dimensions and - if I recall correctly - some of the ancillaries might have been juggled about.

I think i may miss read something but it would be logical for me to use single stage for low altitude operations but properly geared 2 stage supercharger would do the work too and so my mistake here anyway MKXVI would make more power at low then basic IX version

i meant both engines would make the same power but power avilable for prop would be less in IX due to less optimal gear ratio of supercharger

Maby it sound wierd but its harder to make 18lbs boost at sea level then at 6000ft :) if supercharger is geared for 6000ft