VH-Rock Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Seen as though we're all feeling the Spitfire vibe... 1 Virtual Horsemen - Right Wing (P-51) - 2008... Virtual Ultimate Fighters - Lead (P-47) - 2020... Link to comment
Talisman_VR Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Beautiful :thumbup: Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman Link to comment
Krupi Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Fantastic! Now I wonder who is going to be ready first... :music_whistling: I almost have the column set up just waiting for one more component. P.S. Pman any luck with my previous PM? ;) Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit Project IX Cockpit Link to comment
joey45 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Sooo sexy. The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. "Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.." https://ko-fi.com/joey45 Link to comment
Ells228 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Seen as though we're all feeling the Spitfire vibe... Can't be my one Rob, that prop doesn't look dinged at all!! Link to comment
VH-Rock Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Can't be my one Rob, that prop doesn't look dinged at all!! Damn straight! I'm not letting you near the Spitfire until you've mastered the P-40F! Virtual Horsemen - Right Wing (P-51) - 2008... Virtual Ultimate Fighters - Lead (P-47) - 2020... Link to comment
antagonist Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I never really warmed up to the P-40 and am probably going to sit it out, but dat Griffon I'll buy. Link to comment
rel4y Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 If you mean a restoration of balance then yes dark times indeed :thumbup: The irony is that this aircraft actually partook in Normandy :lol: I really hope ED or one of its partners is working on a G6 or something to that effect. There certainly was no low back, clipped wing Spitfire XIV over Normandy invasion site in 44. It came sometime in 45 and only a small two digit number of the fighter variant was ever built during the war. This thing is crazy good, but it's also a unicorn. Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916 Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming Link to comment
Krupi Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Either way XIV did take part in Normandy the same can't be said for the Kurfust so your point is... I would prefer a high back XIV with +18lb however they are going for the version that they have comprehensive data for. Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit Project IX Cockpit Link to comment
antagonist Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Either way XIV did take part in Normandy the same can't be said for the Kurfust so your point is... I would prefer a high back XIV with +18lb however they are going for the version that they have comprehensive data for. I'm actually hoping for a 21 pound boost version. Pman said they were 90% leaning towards the high boost version a few months ago. Link to comment
Krupi Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) I'm actually hoping for a 21 pound boost version. Pman said they were 90% leaning towards the high boost version a few months ago. They are going for the +21lb :huh: It would be nice if they were able to produce both. however I imagine that would be hard to implement and more research. The +18lb would fit the early January 1944 time frame a +21lb XIV bubble canopy (low back) is most definitely a 1945 aircraft. The +21lb would actually fit the Normandy time scale from june onwards IIRC, however it would not have the clipped wings or the bubble canopy. There appears to be a brief period where the XIV moved to the continent and used 100 Ocatane +18 fuel before 150 octane arrived in sufficient numbers around January 45. Edited March 31, 2017 by Krupi Corrected mistake Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit Project IX Cockpit Link to comment
Friedrich-4B Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Quick question: Is the XIV able to cool the engine and oil more efficient than the IX that we got? The Griffon had more effective lubrication than the Merlin; eg: ...end-to-end, high pressure lubrication of the crankshaft (Special Features page 3 of the attached article; also Main Cooling - starting on page 6 - and Lubrication page 7) and a better coolant system, so, overall, the Griffon was an easier engine to manage in respect to engine temperatures.Rolls-Royce Griffon A Classic Design.pdf [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE Link to comment
Krupi Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 The Griffon had more effective lubrication than the Merlin; eg: and a better coolant system, so, overall, the Griffon was an easier engine to manage in respect to engine temperatures. Plus an improved forward view! :D Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit Project IX Cockpit Link to comment
rel4y Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Either way XIV did take part in Normandy the same can't be said for the Kurfust so your point is... I would prefer a high back XIV with +18lb however they are going for the version that they have comprehensive data for. My point is that a G6 has nothing to do with this plane. First of all this is the uber Spitfire version of which less than 30 were ever built. And the difference between this and Mk XIV and a dday Mk XIV is greater in performance and structure than the difference between a dday G6/G14 and a K4. So your point is? 1 Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916 Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming Link to comment
Vincent90 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Is it really necessary to ruin every thread with this discussion yet againnnn? Link to comment
Pman Posted April 1, 2017 Author Share Posted April 1, 2017 My point is that a G6 has nothing to do with this plane. First of all this is the uber Spitfire version of which less than 30 were ever built. And the difference between this and Mk XIV and a dday Mk XIV is greater in performance and structure than the difference between a dday G6/G14 and a K4. So your point is? The point is that there is no discussion on the difference between the G6 and K4 in this thread. There are better places for that gents please. As for our aircraft I have said this before but once more, we do not pick the aircraft we develop based on their combat performance, we pick them on personal interest along with a host of other issues, combat performance does not really come into it. We obviously will ensure that weapons are working for those customers who wish to use them, but please under stand we do not look at whatever else is in DCS, as this will change greatly over time, and decide what we are going to produce. Pman Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment
Krupi Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) My point is that a G6 has nothing to do with this plane. First of all this is the uber Spitfire version of which less than 30 were ever built. And the difference between this and Mk XIV and a dday Mk XIV is greater in performance and structure than the difference between a dday G6/G14 and a K4. So your point is? My point is that the difference of the VEAO spitfire XIV and the Spitfire XIV in Normandy is actually not so much the performance, the only differences are the clipped wing a bubble canopy as the XIV with +21lb boost were actually operational from June 1944... :thumbup: Around 1000 Mk XIV were produced and just below half of them were FR versions. Anyway lets not clutter up this page with arguments... Edited April 1, 2017 by Krupi Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit Project IX Cockpit Link to comment
rel4y Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Well I think low back Spits are incredibly beautiful, so its gonna be a first day buy for me. I kinda dislike that the prop turns the wrong way, but the raw power will make it a joy to fly and fight in I guess. I really hope the Spit development goes much smoother than the P-40 and you guys get it in our hands real quick! :thumbup: Anyway here are the production numbers of the MK XIV. In 44 many of the fighter types were field converted to FR types though, so this will not give an accurate picture for squadron use. I also have a excel chart with attrition rates, but have not yet bothered to make a graph. The VEAO Spit would have been in the Feb/Mar batch of fighter Mk XIVs I guess. Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916 Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming Link to comment
Kurfürst Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 The info that I have does not indicate a loss in climb performance with clipped tips. I point your attention then to DSIR 23/12562 in the Nation Archieves, 'The effect of "clipping" Spitfire wings'. This should detail most of what you need for the clipped FM. For example, stall speeds measured on XIIs were for example very much higher, going up from 75-76 to 90-93 mph and noting that the effect of clipping the wings on stall speeds is for some reason found to be much higher on the Griffon XIIs than the Vs. Further it was concluded that there was only a small increase of roll rate on aircraft with good ailerons, a loss of climb rate of 160-200 feet per min, a great decrease in turning ability. The report goes on to discuss effects on the clipping in detail, my impression being that wing clipping was a two edged sword for particular operations, hence why it was never widely followed. See attachment for their main conclusions. The variety of data that we have ranges from 5000-5300ft per min depending on weight, fuel type/grade and no doubt local atmo. No doubt weight, fuel and atmospheric conditions have great effect. However, the only excess rate of 5000 fpm on XIV seen is on the JF 319 prototype (Mark VIII conversion with Griffon), which did 5110 fpm at +18. However this solely due development Griffon's MS gear being different from the final one, and this impressive climb rate was only maintained up to 1700 feet altitude, the reasons which as clearly stated in the report: 'This aircraft was fitted with a Griffon RG5SM engine and a 5-bladed Rotol propeller. It is understood that the final version of the Mk.XIV will have a Griffon 65 engine which differs from the engine now installed in having a higher MS supercharger gear ratio. The external features of this aircraft were similar to the production version of the Mk.XIV, except that the shape of the fin and rudder will probably be different.' The 'final' or series production Griffon's MS gears were changed to give more practical power curves, even if less power as a result, so they only did about 4600-4700 fpm at MS gear, but that up to around 9000 feet at +18. As the Spitfire comes closer we will refine our selection of specific dependencies but expect the climb rate to be in excess of 5000ft per min at some altitudes. Agreed it all depends on the base data (as noted the prototype had different engine gearings), though considering the effects of clipping the wings and the relative mild difference in power (8-10%) between +18 and +21, this kind 'clipped but high boosted' late variant would suggest to that, at least as far as climb rate goes, these two modifications more or less cancel each other out and rate of climb would be akin to the +18 lbs full wing version, albeit the plane is faster at low altitdes and a crisper roller, but at the same time becoming a worse turner. Come to think of it, clipping the wing transforms it's dogfight charateristics quite a bit and you can never be sure which one you come up against until you are very close! http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945. Link to comment
Pman Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 I point your attention then to DSIR 23/12562 in the Nation Archieves, 'The effect of "clipping" Spitfire wings'. This should detail most of what you need for the clipped FM. For example, stall speeds measured on XIIs were for example very much higher, going up from 75-76 to 90-93 mph and noting that the effect of clipping the wings on stall speeds is for some reason found to be much higher on the Griffon XIIs than the Vs. Further it was concluded that there was only a small increase of roll rate on aircraft with good ailerons, a loss of climb rate of 160-200 feet per min, a great decrease in turning ability. The report goes on to discuss effects on the clipping in detail, my impression being that wing clipping was a two edged sword for particular operations, hence why it was never widely followed. See attachment for their main conclusions. No doubt weight, fuel and atmospheric conditions have great effect. However, the only excess rate of 5000 fpm on XIV seen is on the JF 319 prototype (Mark VIII conversion with Griffon), which did 5110 fpm at +18. However this solely due development Griffon's MS gear being different from the final one, and this impressive climb rate was only maintained up to 1700 feet altitude, the reasons which as clearly stated in the report: 'This aircraft was fitted with a Griffon RG5SM engine and a 5-bladed Rotol propeller. It is understood that the final version of the Mk.XIV will have a Griffon 65 engine which differs from the engine now installed in having a higher MS supercharger gear ratio. The external features of this aircraft were similar to the production version of the Mk.XIV, except that the shape of the fin and rudder will probably be different.' The 'final' or series production Griffon's MS gears were changed to give more practical power curves, even if less power as a result, so they only did about 4600-4700 fpm at MS gear, but that up to around 9000 feet at +18. Agreed it all depends on the base data (as noted the prototype had different engine gearings), though considering the effects of clipping the wings and the relative mild difference in power (8-10%) between +18 and +21, this kind 'clipped but high boosted' late variant would suggest to that, at least as far as climb rate goes, these two modifications more or less cancel each other out and rate of climb would be akin to the +18 lbs full wing version, albeit the plane is faster at low altitdes and a crisper roller, but at the same time becoming a worse turner. Come to think of it, clipping the wing transforms it's dogfight charateristics quite a bit and you can never be sure which one you come up against until you are very close! As I said before I am not going to get into tit for tat about the information that we use for making the FM for the Spitfire. This is not something that we will get into a mass debate with, tbh we can put points across all day long making cases for one side or the other. We have our established data that we are using for the Spitfire, at the moment we are looking at 21lbs, although this may change to 25lbs during development depending on how things go. It will not be an 18lbs boost Spitfire. We have spoken previously Kurfurst that historical data is only so reliable, it is not subject to verified testing conditions and we have verified our testing data with a number of warbird pilots, one of which actually tested a couple of theories of mine during a currency flight in a MkXIV. There will always be variances and we as a third party primarily have to satisfy ourselves that our data is accurate and as reliable as possible. It should be underlined again that we have no interest in the combat performance of the Spitfire vs other modules, there is no tit for tat stuff going on here. In fact I dont think any of our dev team regularly participate in combat in DCS. So our sole interest is getting an FM that represents the aircraft as accurately as possible within the above constraints. Pman 1 Link to comment
Talisman_VR Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 I point your attention then to DSIR 23/12562 in the Nation Archieves, 'The effect of "clipping" Spitfire wings'. This should detail most of what you need for the clipped FM. For example, stall speeds measured on XIIs were for example very much higher, going up from 75-76 to 90-93 mph and noting that the effect of clipping the wings on stall speeds is for some reason found to be much higher on the Griffon XIIs than the Vs. Further it was concluded that there was only a small increase of roll rate on aircraft with good ailerons, a loss of climb rate of 160-200 feet per min, a great decrease in turning ability. The report goes on to discuss effects on the clipping in detail, my impression being that wing clipping was a two edged sword for particular operations, hence why it was never widely followed. See attachment for their main conclusions. No doubt weight, fuel and atmospheric conditions have great effect. However, the only excess rate of 5000 fpm on XIV seen is on the JF 319 prototype (Mark VIII conversion with Griffon), which did 5110 fpm at +18. However this solely due development Griffon's MS gear being different from the final one, and this impressive climb rate was only maintained up to 1700 feet altitude, the reasons which as clearly stated in the report: 'This aircraft was fitted with a Griffon RG5SM engine and a 5-bladed Rotol propeller. It is understood that the final version of the Mk.XIV will have a Griffon 65 engine which differs from the engine now installed in having a higher MS supercharger gear ratio. The external features of this aircraft were similar to the production version of the Mk.XIV, except that the shape of the fin and rudder will probably be different.' The 'final' or series production Griffon's MS gears were changed to give more practical power curves, even if less power as a result, so they only did about 4600-4700 fpm at MS gear, but that up to around 9000 feet at +18. Agreed it all depends on the base data (as noted the prototype had different engine gearings), though considering the effects of clipping the wings and the relative mild difference in power (8-10%) between +18 and +21, this kind 'clipped but high boosted' late variant would suggest to that, at least as far as climb rate goes, these two modifications more or less cancel each other out and rate of climb would be akin to the +18 lbs full wing version, albeit the plane is faster at low altitdes and a crisper roller, but at the same time becoming a worse turner. Come to think of it, clipping the wing transforms it's dogfight charateristics quite a bit and you can never be sure which one you come up against until you are very close! Kurfurst, What I find disappointing about the reference you have attached is that I have never seen any detail of the methodology used for the testing. Do we know what the methodology was for the tests that produced the summary report you attached? At least the comparative trial of the clipped wing and standard wing Spitfires VBs flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) at Duxford details some methodology for us. I believe it is the only proper comparative trial account that we have available and favours the clipped wing over the standard of the time: Increase in speed of clipped wing Spitfire up to 1,000 ft. No difference 15,000 to 20,000 ft. Above 20,000 ft standard wing lightly faster. Climb differences hardly measurable. In zoom climb from 20,000-25,000 ft from level flight at full throttle, standard wings about 15 seconds faster. Roll rate of clipped wing superior up to 1,000 ft. Roll rate of clipped wing superior 15,000 ft to 20,000. Roll rate of clipped wing superior above 20,000 ft. Acceleration of clipped wing superior up to 1,000 ft. Acceleration of clipped wing superior 15,000 ft to 20,000 ft. Acceleration of clipped wing superior above 20,000 ft. In all level speed runs the clipped wing Spitfire accelerated rather better than the standard Spitfire. Dive of clipped wing superior up to 1,000 ft. Dive of clipped wing superior 15,000 ft to 20,000 ft. Dive of clipped wing superior above 20,000 ft. In all dive tests the clipped wing Spitfire drew away from the standard Spitfire. Turning circle slight increase for clipped wings, amounting to 55 feet at 20,000 ft. Report says that this small increase does not detract from the fighting qualities of the aeroplane. Downwards view over the wing tips improved. Four dog-fights carried out with the clipped wing Spitfire coming up trumps every time. Method of Test Two Spitfire VB aircraft were selected with a performance which was almost identical, the loading and equipment carried were standard in each, and the propeller, engine and finish of each aircraft were similar. A test flight was made under maximum cruising conditions and no differences could be determined. The wing tips were then removed from one aircraft and trials were carried out, each trial being performed twice to enable the pilots to be changed. The wing tips were then replaced on one aircraft and removed on the other and similar tests carried out. Differences in speed were taken as relative increases or decreases owing to possible instrument inaccuracies, and position error differences with and without tips. Readings for level speeds were taken at 10,000,15,000, 20,000 and 25,000 feet; zoom climbs were made 10,000-15,000 ft and 20,000-25,000 ft; dives were made with similar engine settings. This comparative trial report previously posted on the forum here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=179432&page=4 Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman Link to comment
Friedrich-4B Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 (edited) As I said before I am not going to get into tit for tat about the information that we use for making the FM for the Spitfire. This is not something that we will get into a mass debate with, tbh we can put points across all day long making cases for one side or the other. We have our established data that we are using for the Spitfire, at the moment we are looking at 21lbs, although this may change to 25lbs during development depending on how things go. It will not be an 18lbs boost Spitfire. We have spoken previously Kurfurst that historical data is only so reliable, it is not subject to verified testing conditions and we have verified our testing data with a number of warbird pilots, one of which actually tested a couple of theories of mine during a currency flight in a MkXIV. There will always be variances and we as a third party primarily have to satisfy ourselves that our data is accurate and as reliable as possible. It should be underlined again that we have no interest in the combat performance of the Spitfire vs other modules, there is no tit for tat stuff going on here. In fact I dont think any of our dev team regularly participate in combat in DCS. So our sole interest is getting an FM that represents the aircraft as accurately as possible within the above constraints. Pman :thumbup: Looking forward to flying this beauty (or would that be the beast?) once she's available. :pilotfly: Purely for interest, I've attached a 1944 Flight magazine article on the XIV, as well as a 1945 Flight article on the Griffon 65.Supermarine Spitfire XIV Flight 1944.pdfRolls-Royce Griffon 65 1945.pdf Edited April 4, 2017 by Friedrich-4/B Add attachments [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE Link to comment
Pilum Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) Thanks for posting the articles Friedrich. Yep, the Mk14's performance will be impressive on all points and will probably make it very hard for K4's in 1v1 scenarios. Probably safest to keep your K4 in the hangar when this one is in the vicinity! :music_whistling: Edited April 4, 2017 by Pilum Old Crow ECM motto: Those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk........ http://www.crows.org/about/mission-a-history.html Pilum aka Holtzauge Link to comment
jvanhoog Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Yes thank you Friedrich for the articles! Link to comment
Recommended Posts