Bf 109 and Spitfire Mk IXc range

I think that it was a permanent compromise with mixture enrichment and consumption at high power rates.

That would mean the merlin in the spit run hotter at the higher boosts compared to the mustang?

That would mean the merlin in the spit run hotter at the higher boosts compared to the mustang?

Spitfire L.F. Mk IX: maximum allowable coolant temp = 135° C. @ +18 lbs @ 3,000 rpm (Oil = 105° C.)

P-51D: maximum allowable coolant temp = 121° C. @ 67" Hg @ 3,000 rpm (Oil = 105° C.)

Presumably the addition of the 85 gal rear fuel tank in later P-51Ds also allowed more latitude for the increased fuel flow rates, compared with the D-5.

It was my understanding that the 85 gallon tank was original equipment on all P-51D models; it was added to the P-51B/C in late 1943, and modification kits were sent to Britain to add them to the USAAF Merlin Mustangs already delivered there.

On the issue of the Spit burning less fuel than the Mustang at similar settings, does anyone have the rates for the Mk XVI? That Mark used (I believe) the same Packard Merlin as the contemporary Mustang production blocks. As I recall, the Packard Merlin used a different carburetion system from the Rolls Royce versions.

I would have expected the draggier Spit to burn more fuel at the same engine settings.

cheers

horseback

On the issue of the Spit burning less fuel than the Mustang at similar settings, does anyone have the rates for the Mk XVI? That Mark used (I believe) the same Packard Merlin as the contemporary Mustang production blocks. As I recall, the Packard Merlin used a different carburetion system from the Rolls Royce versions.

The carburettor (Stromberg PD-18A-1 in Packard vs Stromberg 8D/44/1 in R-R) made no noticeable difference to the fuel consumption of the Spitfire XVI cf the IX.

I would have expected the draggier Spit to burn more fuel at the same engine settings.

 

cheers

 

horseback

Obviously not, according to the fuel consumption figures noted in Pilot's Flight Manuals and Pilot's Notes, some of which have been shown in this thread, and in several other threads discussing the P-51D and Spitfire. Yo-Yo's comments on why this was seem to be the most logical explanation as to why the Mustang had a higher fuel consumption.

As far as the Normandy map & the English Channel is concerned, fuel range of the Spitfire won't be an issue, since all BF109k and FW-190D owners will have to wait about 5 months after "D-Day" for their aircraft to start entering service before they can start using them on the Normandy map (if you want to be realistic).

Until then the Spits can all just move over to France and chill out in the enemy free skies, unless someone releasea a FW 190A8 or a BF109G in the meantime.

As far as the Normandy map & the English Channel is concerned, fuel range of the Spitfire won't be an issue, since all BF109k and FW-190D owners will have to wait about 5 months after "D-Day" for their aircraft to start entering service before they can start using them on the Normandy map (if you want to be realistic).

 

Until then the Spits can all just move over to France and chill out in the enemy free skies, unless someone releasea a FW 190A8 or a BF109G in the meantime.

or perhaps not everyone has OCD with Ultra documentary realism and will instead fight in those aircraft using them as placeholders until we get more era appropriate 109G and Fw190 A8.

If players could tolerate having ww2 servers in Caucasus then flying in better axis aircraft should be easier to swallow.;)

or perhaps not everyone has OCD with Ultra documentary realism and will instead fight in those aircraft using them as placeholders until we get more era appropriate 109G and Fw190 A8.

 

If players could tolerate having ww2 servers in Caucasus then flying in better axis aircraft should be easier to swallow.;)

well said :thumbup:

You will never get full realism anyways (thank god). If so you would have to have 10-1 ratio for the Allies and the smell of the horror of battle entering your cockpit and the sickness that comes with flying from a frontline airfield built on shallow graves.

An approximation at best is what you are gonna get, so I can live with axis aircraft from a few months later- and this comes from a OCD bloke, realizing we are on the verge of the best happening in WW2 sims since the olden days, so I'll dial back and enjoy what is offered instead:)

You will never get full realism anyways (thank god). If so you would have to have 10-1 ratio for the Allies and the smell of the horror of battle entering your cockpit and the sickness that comes with flying from a frontline airfield built on shallow graves.

 

An approximation at best is what you are gonna get, so I can live with axis aircraft from a few months later- and this comes from a OCD bloke, realizing we are on the verge of the best happening in WW2 sims since the olden days, so I'll dial back and enjoy what is offered instead:)

Well said :)

Maybe I should have added a /sarcasm ... sarcasm/ block around the text... or half a dozen smileys at the end?

Yes, that would be very effective.

Sarcasm is fine, it is just that you were echoing a statement a lot of people tend to make. While I and the rest get the point fully- its beating a dead horse:):):)

[EARNEST] Having said that, I would like to see a more contemporaneous FW 190 A-7 or A-8 in the sim to see how it stands up against the Mk IX...

Then you too can be "Pips" Priller during the D-Day landings. [/EARNEST]