Paradox Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Prefer the clipped wings anyway, the only advantage the long wings provide is at high altitude, down low they just slow you down (is the theory of the war office at the time) Link to comment
shagrat Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Yepp! Better maneuverability at high altitude! Where you fight the bomber escorts... anyway they don't have access to an elliptic wing version, so it will be the clipped wing one they have access to, to model and compare. Absolutely reasonable argument! Shagrat - Flying Sims since 1984 - Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VPForce Rhino Base & VIRPIL T50 CM2 Stick on 200mm curved extension | VIRPIL T50 CM2 Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore) Link to comment
ATAG_Snapper Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 :thumbsup:This is excellent news! :thumbup: Link to comment
tempestglen Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 We actually have several positions open, anyone interested should drop me a pm. As for alternative variants it's our intention to do one variant. The low back with clipped wings. Anything above that we can consider pending data, cost and time frames Pman What does "low back" mean? bubble cockpit? We know Dora and Bf109K4 will available in future, Luftwaffe D9/K4 are 1944 late, and P51D(18lbs boost) is 1944 early. Spitfire XIV(18lbs initially) came into service in 1944 Jan. Before D day, allied decided to increase boost from 18lbs to 21lbs and they accomplished this indeed(spitfire IX even 25lbs boost). To FairPlay, we'd like to see 21lbs SpirfireXIV! Better performance below FTH. Link to comment
Pman Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 What does "low back" mean? bubble cockpit? We know Dora and Bf109K4 will available in future, Luftwaffe D9/K4 are 1944 late, and P51D(18lbs boost) is 1944 early. Spitfire XIV(18lbs initially) came into service in 1944 Jan. Before D day, allied decided to increase boost from 18lbs to 21lbs and they accomplished this indeed(spitfire IX even 25lbs boost). To FairPlay, we'd like to see 21lbs SpirfireXIV! Better performance below FTH. Yea low back = bubble canopy As for the fuel grade and topped out performance grade that's Tbc. We wont be tuning our aircraft to specifically fight any other third parties aircraft. They will be as they are depending on our references and available aircraft airframes and data. Pman Link to comment
tempestglen Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yea low back = bubble canopy As for the fuel grade and topped out performance grade that's Tbc. We wont be tuning our aircraft to specifically fight any other third parties aircraft. They will be as they are depending on our references and available aircraft airframes and data. Pman I see, this type is a beauty! Fantastic riding.I'll spend 100$ to buy it, LOL. Btw, low back+clipped wing=late batch spitfire XIV, most of them are 21lbs boost in my memory. Wish you succeed! Link to comment
Pman Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 I see, this type is a beauty! Fantastic riding.I'll spend 100$ to buy it, LOL. Btw, low back+clipped wing=late batch spitfire XIV, most of them are 21lbs boost in my memory. Wish you succeed! Can promise you it won't cost you that much ;) I'd expect 21lbs but it's Tbc until we get further into the engine development for this one Pman Link to comment
ED Team NineLine Posted June 9, 2014 ED Team Share Posted June 9, 2014 I love Spitfires. That is all. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment
SkateZilla Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I love Merlin Engines..... Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2), ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9) 3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs Link to comment
tempestglen Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Can promise you it won't cost you that much ;) I'd expect 21lbs but it's Tbc until we get further into the engine development for this one Pman As a hardcore Britain a/c fan, I am so excited because your project can make my dream come true since 2001/2 when il2 sturmovik released. I just enjoy flying the ultimate spitfire or tempest.:pilotfly: Link to comment
Pman Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 I love Merlin Engines..... This one's a Griffin powered spit Skate....however... As a hardcore Britain a/c fan, I am so excited because your project can make my dream come true since 2001/2 when il2 sturmovik released. I just enjoy flying the ultimate spitfire or tempest.:pilotfly: Then being a true British aircraft fan you will be very pleased with some of my concept stuff I hope to be able to share over the next few months... Pman Link to comment
Random Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Are sounds going to be recorded from the real aircraft? I'm hoping you guys manage to recreate that griffin snarl! Link to comment
Sharpe Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Are sounds going to be recorded from the real aircraft? I'm hoping you guys manage to recreate that griffin snarl! That would indeed be cool! Link to comment
Pman Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 Are sounds going to be recorded from the real aircraft? I'm hoping you guys manage to recreate that griffin snarl! Yes it will be :D Pman Link to comment
tempestglen Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Then being a true British aircraft fan you will be very pleased with some of my concept stuff I hope to be able to share over the next few months... Pman One techical question, how do you simulate air compression (mach number)? We know in a long time shallow dive, Spitfire could reach 0.96 mach. Above 0.8mach, the extra drag should not be neglected. Those simulation 10 years ago(il2) didn't do well in mach munber simulation. Is DCS capable of supersonic/transonic speed aerodynamics simulation? On 5 February 1952, a Spitfire 19 of 81 Squadron based at Kai Tak in Hong Kong reached probably the highest altitude ever achieved by a Spitfire. The pilot, Flight Lieutenant Ted Powles,[117] was on a routine flight to survey outside-air temperature and report on other meteorological conditions at various altitudes in preparation for a proposed new air service through the area. He climbed to 50,000 ft (15,240 m) indicated altitude, with a true altitude of 51,550 ft (15,712 m). The cabin pressure fell below a safe level and, in trying to reduce altitude, he entered an uncontrollable dive which shook the aircraft violently. He eventually regained control somewhere below 3,000 ft (900 m) and landed safely with no discernible damage to his aircraft. Evaluation of the recorded flight data suggested that, in the dive, he achieved a speed of 690 mph (1,110 km/h, Mach 0.96), which would have been the highest speed ever reached by a propeller-driven aircraft, but it has been speculated this figure resulted from inherent instrument errors.[114] Constant speed propeller(CST) could adjust blade angle to maintain stable propeller efficiency(80%-90%) WITHIN level speed envolope, but if Spitfire dives OUT OF speed envolope such as 0.7-0.8Mach, What 's the efficiency? Drops to 50%? 60%? 40%? Edited June 10, 2014 by tempestglen Link to comment
Pman Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 Hi tempestglen Give me an easy one why dont you. Yes DCS is capable of simulating those effects. There Spitfire was a spitfire specifically rigged for speed tests, it was a MkXI with a special prop and basically everything that could be removed was removed, Diving at 45 degrees from 45'000 feet. You will not be able to do that in our spitfire, for one thing the MkXIV does not have a pressurised cockpit so you really wont want to be climbing that high. Plus the aircraft will start tearing itself apart at those speeds. The Spitfire in question suffered severe damage as a result of that dive. Only picture that I know of for this is here As you can see, if this happened at Mach 0.92 as was recorded by specifically designed instruments with all the modifications then I agree with your quote that I dont think its possible for a Spitfire to achieve 0.96 without catastrophic damage. As such I agree that its instruments were probably faulty. Some of the mathmatical equations I have seen (I am not going to pretend that I understand them in their entirety but I know enough) indicate that at its peak the prop may fall as low as 44% eff. Obviously this is at the extreme end of the spectrum and I would expect more like 60% in most situations. Hope that helps answer your question Pman Link to comment
tempestglen Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Hi tempestglen Give me an easy one why dont you. Yes DCS is capable of simulating those effects. There Spitfire was a spitfire specifically rigged for speed tests, it was a MkXI with a special prop and basically everything that could be removed was removed, Diving at 45 degrees from 45'000 feet. Pman Great stuff, Pman. Happy to hear DCS can handle transonic aerodynamics, after all, it's medern airacraft simulation! Let's forget about 0.96 mach. In late piston aircraft manual(P51, spit XIV?), 500MPH( 800km/h) is the limit of low altitude dive. I am interested in 680-850km/h speed range where the propeller efficiency is a mystery for me. 3-blade vs 4-blade, conventional airfoil vs laminar......That puzzles me. For instance, if my propeller efficiency 10% higher than yours in a contineuous shallow dive, I steal 10% engine output from you, it's quite a tactic advantage. Link to comment
Pman Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 Great stuff, Pman. Happy to hear DCS can handle transonic aerodynamics, after all, it's medern airacraft simulation! Let's forget about 0.96 mach. In late piston aircraft manual(P51, spit XIV?), 500MPH( 800km/h) is the limit of low altitude dive. I am interested in 680-850km/h speed range where the propeller efficiency is a mystery for me. 3-blade vs 4-blade, conventional airfoil vs laminar......That puzzles me. For instance, if my propeller efficiency 10% higher than yours in a contineuous shallow dive, I steal 10% engine output from you, it's quite a tactic advantage. Yes in theory you would have an advantage. How much that advantage is really depends on the efficiency of the propeller vs airspeed. For example, if you had 5% advantage but that 5% actually translated to 7 mph at the top end of the spectrum then the advantage is almost negligible. Reverse that at say in envelope speed and the speed difference could be substantial. Hope that makes sense Pman Link to comment
tempestglen Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Yes in theory you would have an advantage. How much that advantage is really depends on the efficiency of the propeller vs airspeed. For example, if you had 5% advantage but that 5% actually translated to 7 mph at the top end of the spectrum then the advantage is almost negligible. Reverse that at say in envelope speed and the speed difference could be substantial. Hope that makes sense Pman Assume that everything else being equal but my Spitfire XIV propeller efficiency is 10% more than your Spitfire's at 750km/h IAS when diving to low altitude. That's 200HP difference, this means my spitfire is 21lbs boost(2200HP) but yours degraded to 18 lbs (2000HP), your 145/110 fuel and engine mechanical modification for higher boost are meaningless in this scenario. I can imagine how angry those royce-rolls engineers are. :smilewink: High speed diving is a frequently used evade maneuvor in WWII, even ordinary pilots can easily get themselves out of trouble by out-diving ACE enemy. The question is whether the efficiency difference is as big as 10% when compared various aircrafts at high speed diving. If so, it's worthy to research it. There are several funny stories in WWII. One of them is German 3-blade wide chord wood propeller. German always kept 3-blade configuration in WWII, perhaps for the cannon fire rate reason(gun synchronizer). In order to absorb ever increasing engine power, they developed wood(better energy absorption)wide chord propeller while allied did the same thing but preferred to 4-blade metal configuration. (RAF developed 5-blade wood propellers.) Once more, just as the NACA was aware and used Gottingen airfoils, so did the German designers use NACA airfoils. The Focke Wulf FW-190A uses the NACA 23015.3 at the root and NACA 23009 at the tip. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc62616/m1/19/ Three-blade Hamilton standard no. 6507A-2 propeller on a Republic P-47D airplane, drops its efficiency to 75-70% at 0.65Mach=800km/h-500MPH TAS, that’s 450MPH? IAS, below 500MPH IAS limit. Fw190 dive limit is 466 MPH (750km/h)IAS. But I can say the 3.3-meter diameter propeller in fockwulf suffers much more efficiency drop than 4-meter propeller on p47. advance ratio=J=V/(d*n). d=diameter. When dive to same V=450MPH IAS, Fw190’s advance ratio is quite higher than p47’s, so worse efficiency. 1944 early, both German and allied began to use wide chord airfoil in fighters: fw190a8 and p47d-25 with wide chord design, German get better climb and turn performance, so was allied. http://www.368thfightergroup.com/P-47-R2800.html p47 got more than 10% climb rate due to wide chord paddle propeller. I have all the data on VDM propeller series. The wide chord wooden props for the Luftwaffe dropped top level speed by about 4 percent but increased turn and climb rate by about 15 percent. The Luftwaffe conducted several indepth studies. I am sure the USAAF did the same. Blade width does help efficiency to a point. Another forum, a guy named crumpp said so. You see, even at not-so-high max level speed (680km/h TAS or so), the wide chord propeller loses 8% efficiency compared old narrow type (4% speed lose means 8% output lose). Obviously, 3-blade wide chord increase efficiency at low-medium speed(clime rate/turning) at the expense of 680km/h's efficiency. Can I say there is more sacrifice at 750-800km/h TAS(<466MPH IAS fw190 dive limit)?:D To sum up, it's probably that allied 4/5 blade+greater diameter propellers get 10% more efficiency at 750-800TAS diving than german 3-blade+smaller diameter ones. Link to comment
bongodriver Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 if crump said it it's not true. Link to comment
Pman Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 The question is whether the efficiency difference is as big as 10% when compared various aircrafts at high speed diving. If so, it's worthy to research it. Alot of what you state is very true (not all of it, but a fair bit), however I think this sums it up. For informational use this may be quite interesting but when it comes to programming aircraft for a simulator you cant do it this way. Ours is not an art of balance but more of precision. Our job is to simulate the aircraft as close to its real counterpart as possible. We will simulate everything we can regarding air cushioning effect and other aerodynamic influences, how they compare to other aircraft or how other 3rd parties do them isnt something we can control What I can tell you is that I have 5 real world Spitfire pilots who have agreed to fly our simulator to ensure that we have the highest level of precision in any Spitfire Mk XIV simulator anywhere :) Pman Link to comment
shagrat Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 What I can tell you is that I have 5 real world Spitfire pilots who have agreed to fly our simulator to ensure that we have the highest level of precision in any Spitfire Mk XIV simulator anywhere :) Pman That's why we love you guys so much! In a platonic way, I mean :D Shagrat - Flying Sims since 1984 - Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VPForce Rhino Base & VIRPIL T50 CM2 Stick on 200mm curved extension | VIRPIL T50 CM2 Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore) Link to comment
tempestglen Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Alot of what you state is very true (not all of it, but a fair bit), however I think this sums it up. For informational use this may be quite interesting but when it comes to programming aircraft for a simulator you cant do it this way. Ours is not an art of balance but more of precision. Our job is to simulate the aircraft as close to its real counterpart as possible. We will simulate everything we can regarding air cushioning effect and other aerodynamic influences, how they compare to other aircraft or how other 3rd parties do them isnt something we can control What I can tell you is that I have 5 real world Spitfire pilots who have agreed to fly our simulator to ensure that we have the highest level of precision in any Spitfire Mk XIV simulator anywhere :) Pman 5 real world Spitfire pilots, that's very good. If you simulate efficiency drop at high speed diving, that's fantastic. Link to comment
tempestglen Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 if crump said it it's not true. :lol: Link to comment
Pman Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 5 real world Spitfire pilots, that's very good. If you simulate efficiency drop at high speed diving, that's fantastic. We will don't worry, we just can't make statements how our aircraft will compare to another aircraft we haven't made :) We have very good access to both personell and 2 aircraft that will enable us to make an amazing SIM for everyone Pman Link to comment
Recommended Posts