JtD

I think so far Kurfürsts statements were that 1.98 existed and 18lb was more common in 1944. Which I guess is right on both occasions, isn't it? No need to jump the gun with the bias discussion. And frankly, the bigger concern is that we get a Normandy map and a K-4, which doesn't add up in the first place. Whichever engine it uses, whatever boost, it will be out of place. So we're better getting on Luthiers nerves for him to release map editor tools so that we as the community can throw in an Ardennes map a.s.a.p. :)

The clipped wings were used across the board and were neither limited to the LF models, nor did all LF models have clipped wings.

The Spitfire F IX used Merlin 61 and 63 engines, the Spitfire LF IX used Merlin 66 engines. I guess you got that right. :)

Yep, conflicting resources everywhere, changes of designations and technical specifications all the time. Got 5 datasets for the D, 3 agree on maximum power, 2 pairs agree on full throttle altitudes, 2 agree on the boost, all 5 agree on C3. The K-4 manual, next page to the one posted, in the only one to implicate the use of B4, which may very well have become acceptable later in the war. Same thing about the DM, hardly used, maybe relabelled quickly. Standard engines in the K-4 were DB and DC. Since the K-4 handbook says what it does, it was probably correct at the time.

DB605A engine - lets say standard engine, B4 fuel, 1475hp DB605AM engine - same engine, with MW50 injection+C3 fuel, 1800hp DB605AS engine - DB605 with DB603 supercharger, B4 fuel, 1435hp DB605ASM engine - DB605AS with MW50 injection+C3 fuel, 1800hp DB605ASB engine - DB605AS with increased compression, MW50 injection+B4 fuel or just C3 fuel, 1850hp DB605ASC engine - DB605AS with increased compression, MW50 injection, C3 fuel, 2000hp DB605D engine - higher compression than DB605A, different oil system, different boost regulation, C3 fuel, 1550hp DB605DB engine - DB605D with MW50 injection+B4 fuel or C3 fuel, 1850hp DB605DC engine - DB605D with MW50 injection+C3 fuel, 2000hp DB605DM engine - DB605D with MW50 injection+B4 fuel, no C3 option, 1850hp

Thanks for the update and have a good trip home.

Updates don't have to be best looking pictures. A few lines, a little dialogue with the supporters / customers also do the trick.

24 pages of discussion about a bar and no drinks served.

Spitfire loading plans. I recall these figures from when TD reworked the Spitfire FM's in Il2:1946. I don't have the sources here. IvanK might. NACA tested at 31.4% MAC, iIrc it corresponds to roughly 7" from datum point. Spitfire IX was at about 4", or 28.5%. I think MAC was about 88".

0.75 inches. 15-20mm.

Practically, it did. Why would that be? The stick forces of the Spitfire V come from three main sources - friction in the controls, the elevator mass imbalance and the aerodynamic forces from elevator deflection. Now friction and mass imbalance are completely independent from a higher elevator angle required with a more forward CoG, only aerodynamic forces are not. And these were low in the first place. There are plenty of pilots comments on heavier elevator of the IX to be found, as well as test pilots comments on better longitudinal stability. However, I'm not aware of complaints about "much heavier controls", as they weren't "much" heavier. Some pilots would instead positively note the reduced nervousness of the plane and better control balance. It can't be so difficult to move the CoG the document ~3" forward and let the DCS engine deal with it.

The CoG of a service Spitfire IX was about 3% MAC further forward than that of the tested Spitfire V and the control characteristics were considerably different.