Even with the Spitfire, the bf-109 and the fw-190 will keep making the law in the sky

I cant help but think... spitfire is a failed design. its just too slow. If it was designed like somethin similar to a yak3 but with that 1700 hp engine... it would go ~590 kmh instead of 530 at ground level. It simply cannot compete with 40-50 kmh deficit against similar planes.

That's quite a bold statement. The Spitfire is the epitome of a successful design with over 22,000 built and with an adaptable airframe that could do a lot and be modified endlessly.

Recall the Spitfire XIV entered service in January of 1944, well before the P-51D, P-38L and at a similar time as the late 109G models. It is very fast indeed. The Mk. IX is a 1942 aircraft although our example is an uprated one. There a lot of Mk IX's around late in the war so they were just upgraded.

Saying the Spitfire is a failed design because an older version is what we have takes all that out of context. It's like saying the F-15 is a failed design as a modern fighter because it isn't a stealth aircraft.

Saying the Spitfire is a failed design because an older version is what we have takes all that out of context. It's like saying the F-15 is a failed design as a modern fighter because it isn't a stealth aircraft.

Now that what I call a perfect description :thumbup:

That's quite a bold statement. The Spitfire is the epitome of a successful design with over 22,000 built and with an adaptable airframe that could do a lot and be modified endlessly.

 

Recall the Spitfire XIV entered service in January of 1944, well before the P-51D, P-38L and at a similar time as the late 109G models. It is very fast indeed. The Mk. IX is a 1942 aircraft although our example is an uprated one. There a lot of Mk IX's around late in the war so they were just upgraded.

 

Saying the Spitfire is a failed design because an older version is what we have takes all that out of context. It's like saying the F-15 is a failed design as a modern fighter because it isn't a stealth aircraft.

When the spitfire is slower then his alternatives and adversaries by 50 kmh and more you cant callthe plane a successful design with a serious face. its crap.

When the spitfire is slower then his alternatives and adversaries by 50 kmh and more you cant callthe plane a successful design with a serious face. its crap.

I sense a troll.

Ahaha. That must be why they used Spit XIVs to run down V1s.

@MaxDamage Yes the ai are cheaters but they (at least the 109, haven't tried the spit yet but hear it's similar) are good for training energy efficient flying against. If you can maintain energy and even gain position on them then you know your stick and rudder skills are getting pretty decent. The maneuvering side is also good for practicing but after a while you know their moves and can predict them fairly well.

Also as Krupi already pointed out, I flew it against other people as well. Saying it's crap is pretty wide of the mark IMO. Just cause you can't kill stuff doesn't mean she doesn't have it in her...

When the spitfire is slower then his alternatives and adversaries by 50 kmh and more you cant callthe plane a successful design with a serious face. its crap.

I'll definitely have to call the F-86 unsuccessful then because it was subsonic during the wars it fought in the 1960's. I'm just going to forget about the fact that it fought in the Korean war in 1950.

I'll also forget that the Spitfire XIV could catch up to a 109K at most altitudes and out maneuver it and fly further despite it entering service way before the 109K.

I'll forget that the Spitfire IX was built specifically to win parity with the Fw 190A which it did (thereby succeeding in its primary role).

You win.

On Jan 1 1945 Allied a/c made ~175 claims (damaged-destroyed) during Bodenplatte. So Allied a/c were not totally outclassed by German fighters.

Claims and reality rarely compare well, esp. when you're flying over hostile territory.

So all claims from both sides in the period should be taken with a grain of salt unless they can be cross checked and verified with sources from the other side.

When the spitfire is slower then his alternatives and adversaries by 50 kmh and more you cant callthe plane a successful design with a serious face. its crap.

Eh... the Spitfire & 109 were basically on par throughout the war, so by calling the Spitfire unsuccessful you're calling the 109 the same.

Also I'd have to say that in terms of their final variants of the war, XIV vs K-4, whilst close the Spitfire was slightly better.

Eh... the Spitfire & 109 were basically on par throughout the war, so by calling the Spitfire unsuccessful you're calling the 109 the same.

 

Also I'd have to say that in terms of their final variants of the war, XIV vs K-4, whilst close the Spitfire was slightly better.

My opinion would be the Spit XIV was ultimately the best aircraft of the war. Had just about everything you needed.

Super late war would be D9 and Tempest, but...ok...we won't open this can of worms.:music_whistling:

When the spitfire is slower then his alternatives and adversaries by 50 kmh and more you cant callthe plane a successful design with a serious face. its crap.

A prime example from WW2 era. Tiger 1 was much better technically than T-34. Well, soviets managed to build almost 85k of T-34 while nazis struggled to arrive with less than 1.5k. In overall perspective T-34 was much superior design.

Without a context of what was the role, how it was fulfilled, timeline, ability to develop the construction, maintenance, cost per unit, etc.. comparing technical performance 1-1 is maybe interesting but only from theoretical perspective. This goes without mentioning that putting aside a mid-war and end of ww2 era constructions is apples and oranges.

My opinion would be the Spit XIV was ultimately the best aircraft of the war. Had just about everything you needed.

 

Super late war would be D9 and Tempest, but...ok...we won't open this can of worms.:music_whistling:

Yes, IMHO the Spitfire MkXIV, Ta-152H & F4U-4 were the finest prop jobs of the war.

But ofcourse the Me262 outclassed them all.

Recall the Spitfire XIV entered service in January of 1944, well before the P-51D, P-38L and at a similar time as the late 109G models.

Two flights of 4 planes in No. 610 Sqn... this should put the XIV's operational role in context - number assigned in 1944.

Note that the RAF's fighter Squadrons contained 20 aircraft at the time, with 12 flying and the rest being immidiate reserve aircraft.

Graph data was compiled by JV69badatflyski.

Number of Mk XIVs issued to Squadrons.

Once (or perhaps if :rolleyes: ) VEAO get the XIV out of the hanger then we will also have a spit that can keep up :D

Number of Spitfire Mark XIVe assigned to Squadrons, compiled by JV69badatflyski from Spitfire aircraft records.

I can't even fathom the reaction from those who keep on claiming how those cc 3500 K-4s and D9s shouldn't be in DCS, because they were 'rare'. :megalol:

A prime example from WW2 era. Tiger 1 was much better technically than T-34. Well, soviets managed to build almost 85k of T-34 while nazis struggled to arrive with less than 1.5k. In overall perspective T-34 was much superior design.

What, 85.000 T-34? They build ca. 55.000 and lost ca. 45.000 over the war.

Sorry for being offtopic.

Number of Spitfire Mark XIVe assigned to Squadrons, compiled by JV69badatflyski from Spitfire aircraft records.

 

I can't even fathom the reaction from those who keep on claiming how those cc 3500 K-4s and D9s shouldn't be in DCS, because they were 'rare'. :megalol:

 

3500!!!

Lol perhaps 350 actually in service :thumbup:

Knowing your love of telling porkies I will compile my own list :D

How about you make a fair comparison for a change?

Number of Spitfire Mark XIVe assigned to Squadrons, compiled by JV69badatflyski from Spitfire aircraft records.

 

I can't even fathom the reaction from those who keep on claiming how those cc 3500 K-4s and D9s shouldn't be in DCS, because they were 'rare'. :megalol:

 

The problem is not so much why they are in game, rather it is why they chose a mid-late 1943 configuration for the Spitfire IX when they knew it was primarily going up against two late war German fighters with tremendous performance advantages. That said, based on questions posed in this thread, that they may make amends to the performance by adding 100/150 octane fuels. This will certainly level the playing field.

Tempest V - 801

Spitfire XIV - 957

Dora 9 - 1805

K-4 - 1593

Now of course this is not a fair comparison as Germany didn't have enough pilots or fuel to get these aircraft in the air :doh:

For example...

856 Kurfürst produced by the end of 1944 yet only 314 were in operational service by the end of January.

Tempest V - 801

 

Spitfire XIV - 957

 

Dora 9 - 1805

 

K-4 - 1593

 

Now of course this is not a fair comparison as Germany didn't have enough pilots or fuel to get these aircraft in the air :doh:

 

For example...

 

856 Kurfürst produced by the end of 1944 yet only 314 were in operational service by the end of January.

Your Tempest and XIV production figures also contain post VE day production, I see, whereas the German planes production ran only up to

Don't loose too much hair over it Krupi, it's just how it worked everywhere. Nobody was deploying 100% of the aircraft produced to the frontline. You need to keep reserves to replace losses. You need to pull back units from the front-line when re-arming them with a new type so that pilots can train and familiarize themselves with the new planes. New planes and engines need to be flown in as well, their quirks like misadjustments worked out, just like with new cars. And you loose quite a few in the meantime, in accidents and in combat.

Hence why you see about 314 K-4s on the frontlines, with units out of the cc 1100 produced by the end of January 1945. Hence why you see only about 120 XIVs (or about 70 operational really, because the RAF kept almost the same number of planes in reserves that directly allocated to Squadrons) out the cc. 300 produced by the end of 1944.

In short, its pretty normal.

Well I suppose there was really no need to have them on front line since the only threat to the allies came from flak due to the lack of fuel to supply the luftwaffe.

Yeah sure the rest in reserve, nothing to do with them being blown up in transit to airfields or being blown out the sky because the skies were owned by an abundance of allied aircraft or because they were in need of repair.... No there were keeping them out of the way :doh: you really believe that at this point in the war the luftwaffe weren't throwing everything they had at the allies advance?! :doh:

Wake up and smell the coffee, either that or your own BS

Either way I can't wait for the release of the true opposition to the rare Kurfürst the XIV, no matter how much negative propaganda and misinformation you spread it won't stop the XIV from being released :thumbup:

The problem is not so much why they are in game, rather it is why they chose a mid-late 1943 configuration for the Spitfire IX when they knew it was primarily going up against two late war German fighters with tremendous performance advantages. That said, based on questions posed in this thread, that they may make amends to the performance by adding 100/150 octane fuels. This will certainly level the playing field.

Well, DCS seems to model all our planes in their late 1944, most typical configuration. We have a late P-51D-25 or D-30 block with metal control surfaces, K-14 gunsight, tail warning radar and fuselage fin added. This corresponds to a configuration that appeared somewhere between October 1944 and March 1945. The only, IMO valid issue is if should get the raised 72" boost with 100/150 grade fuel that would correspond specifically to it's 8th AAF Fighter Command configuration at the time (9th AAF, 15th AAF, Far east units still used the same 67" we have modelled).

Similarly our Dora and Kurfürst are in their cc. 1944 October-November configuration, i.e. the K-4 is the 1.8ata boost version instead of the 1.98ata one.

There is nothing wrong with the current IX's so-called 'mid-late 1943' configuration, because its really the same as the 'mid-late 1944' configuration, i.e. +18 lbs boost with some smaller improvements and modifications to the airframe. The actual 'mid-1943' configuration for the Mk IXLF is that it doesn't exist in the first place and everyone would be flying the Mk Vs which were the most common Spits at the time, with a handful of IXLFs in service. They did not appear in greater numbers in service until about April-May 1944... and 100/150 octane fuel was not released for operational use until about February-March 1945, and its open to question how common it was even then. Same goes to VEAO's ultra-rare and ultra-rare war XIVe config with teardrop canopy and +21 boost. These all appeared in the srping of 1945 by which time you should also see improvements like increased engine powers to German planes as well.

So even if the playing field is not 'level', it corresponds accurately (except for the missing 8th AAF config for the Mustang) to the late 1944 configuration of these planes. IF they want to model a Mark IXLF in its very late war configuration with 100/150 octane fuel and +25 lbs, I am sure the same standards should apply to Germans planes, i.e. you should also see a 109K in its very late war configuration, i.e. the one with 2000 HP engine output.

Well, DCS seems to model all our planes in their late 1944, most typical configuration. We have a late P-51D-25 or D-30 block with metal control surfaces, K-14 gunsight, tail warning radar and fuselage fin added. This corresponds to a configuration that appeared somewhere between October 1944 and March 1945. The only, IMO valid issue is if should get the raised 72" boost with 100/150 grade fuel that would correspond specifically to it's 8th AAF Fighter Command configuration at the time (9th AAF, 15th AAF, Far east units still used the same 67" we have modelled).

 

Similarly our Dora and Kurfürst are in their cc. 1944 October-November configuration, i.e. the K-4 is the 1.8ata boost version instead of the 1.98ata one.

 

There is nothing wrong with the current IX's so-called 'mid-late 1943' configuration, because its really the same as the 'mid-late 1944' configuration, i.e. +18 lbs boost with some smaller improvements and modifications to the airframe. The actual 'mid-1943' configuration for the Mk IXLF is that it doesn't exist in the first place and everyone would be flying the Mk Vs which were the most common Spits at the time, with a handful of IXLFs in service. They did not appear in greater numbers in service until about April-May 1944... and 100/150 octane fuel was not released for operational use until about February-March 1945, and its open to question how common it was even then. Same goes to VEAO's ultra-rare and ultra-rare war XIVe config with teardrop canopy and +21 boost. These all appeared in the srping of 1945 by which time you should also see improvements like increased engine powers to German planes as well.

 

So even if the playing field is not 'level', it corresponds accurately (except for the missing 8th AAF config for the Mustang) to the late 1944 configuration of these planes. IF they want to model a Mark IXLF in its very late war configuration with 100/150 octane fuel and +25 lbs, I am sure the same standards should apply to Germans planes, i.e. you should also see a 109K in its very late war configuration, i.e. the one with 2000 HP engine output.

1.98 ata was not cleared for use in 1944.

In 45 it was only tested...

While 150 octane was used in a variety of aircraft during 1944.

1.98 ata was not cleared for use in 1944.

 

In 45 it was only tested...

Really.

While 150 octane was used in a variety of aircraft during 1944.

Indeed, most prominently by Mustangs, 190s and 109s though.

Yes and the date you cut from that document... 24/01/1945

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Niederschrift_Nr_6730.pdf

it is agreed by most historians that after operation bodenplatte on 01/01/1945 that the luftewaffe was no longer a capable air force.

Yes 1944 was when 150 was introduced...

"Into Service with the Royal Air Force

Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. 36 In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations. 37 38 Air Defense Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) shared a report, dated 16th June 1944 with A.E.A.F. summarizing the RAF's experience with using 150 Grade Fuel in Merlin 66 engines. All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. 39 By the end of July the backfires were overcome through fairly straightforward adjustments. 40 By 12 August 1944, 16 Squadrons in A.D.G.B. had been modified to to operate with 150 grade fuel. 41

The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests, Spitfires and Mosquitoes in intercepting V-1 Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level were as follows: 42 43

130 Grade 150 Grade

Spitfire IX 335 mph 358 mph +25 lb

Spitfire XIV 359 mph 366 mph +21 lb

Tempest V 372 mph 386 mph +11 lb

Mustang III (V-1650-3) 360 mph 390 mph +25 lb

Mosquito NF. Mk. XIX 363 mph +25 lb

The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) reported in Technical Note No.Aero.1501(Flight) that a Mustang III (Merlin V-1650-7), flying at +25 lb./sq.in. as received from Squadron, obtained 382 mph at sea level. 44 404 mph was obtained at sea level after "cleaning up" the aircraft by removing the bomb racks and aerial bracket, repainting the wing's leading edge and rubbing down the aircraft. 316 Squadron was one of the Mustang units to convert to 150 grade fuel, their Operations Record Book stating for 1.7.44 "18 A/C test after modification to +25 lbs boost". 45 610 Squadron uprated thier Spitfire XIVs on 14 July, the Operations Record Book stating "A technical party visited the unit to modify the aircraft to fly at 21 lbs boost on 150 octane petrol". 46 These squadrons did more that just chase "divers" as 315 Squadron demonstrated with their Mustangs when they shot down 6 Me 109's, 1 Me 110 and 1 Fw 190 while escorting Beaufighters to Norway on 30 July 1944. 47 85 and 157 Squadrons were two of the Mosquito units operating at +25 lbs boost with 150 grade fuel. 48 49 By mid August the V-1 diver threat was largly eliminated with the advance of the allied armies beyond the launching areas. The ADGB squadrons that had converted to 150 grade fuel now found more time to operate over the continent. The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces. They paid their first visit to Germany on 27 August 1944. 50 51 316 Squadron flying their Mustangs downed 3 Me 109’s and a Fw 190 five miles N. of Chalom on 14 August. 52 315 Squadron met with remarkable success on 18 August, claiming 16 Fw 190’s shot down near Beauvais with their boosted Mustang III’s (II./JG 26 admitted to 8 killed and 2 wounded). 53 By this time Headquarters, Air Defense of Great Britain required all Packard Merlin V-1650-7 engines in the Mustangs to be modified to operate at 25 lbs. boost. 54 55 56 57 The Spitfire XIV squadrons quickly got into the swing of it with 350 Squadron scoring on 19 August by shooting down a Ju 88 on the outskirts of Brussels. 58 By early September the Spitfire XIV units were engaged in operations over Germany. 59 60 61 62 63"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

I agree with Kurfurst on this one and I'd rather see the aircraft stick with the most common late 1944 era 100/130 grade and B4 fuel over their rarer 100/150 grade C3 alternatives.