DCS Spitfire Mk IX performance

[Decibel dB]

I think it will. With the current spoting state and how easy it is to loose sight, a turn fighter definitely have the advantage.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

model enlargement was adjusted in the open beta...its definitely better there...but you are right....charts and how effective an aircraft is in a simulation can be entirely two different things.

[amazingme]

hmm..

 

Or you could just check the data avaiable for the Bf109K and Spitfire LF MkIX 18lbs. Although, you should actually know how the fight looks from other simulations.

 

I agree with Talisman, people may be hyped, and I am glad we are getting a new airplane for DCS, but the Spitfire will not be an airplane that tips the balance. Though, it will certainly bring a breath of fresh air. For those that like to pull on the stick untill they see enemy tail, it will be the perfect choice :P

 

I think you have to create your own server and play some "matched" games between, let's say, BF109 vs F15.. you take the F15..

You don't understand that DCS is not about you having a "matching" aircraft to play with, but to have an aircraft that matches real life flight data.

Let's keep the discussions in these parameters..

[Euan Emblin]

I do share some of the disappointment with the choice of Spit from the perspective of 'a matched confrontation' and it is fair to say, I think, that for many of our fellow pilots this is what they are looking for, perhaps as it then gives indication as to who really is the better pilot.

 

DCS has never really been singularly focussed on the equitability of the air-duel, much stronger is its obsession with high fidelity cockpit coupled with advanced systems modelling and real-life flight data matching within the flight model.

 

This I find totally praiseworthy. Also we do need to bear in mind the various undisclosed parameters and discussions that invariably happen within ED as to how the sim should be configured. They may well have their own very good business reasons governing their final selections and choices. This WWII project began in Luthier's disreputable hands and ED have taken on what he started. I think that has a knock-on into what we see developing now. So be it.

 

I, myself, spend a lot of time flying within DCS offline simply for the pleasure of the aircraft itself. I love the dedication to authenticity displayed within both ED and the 3rd party developers, bring it on VEAO and your Spit Mk1V!

 

The Spit LF MkIX was in many pilots' own words the best flying of the many Spit marks, Al Deere regularly commented on just that. It was also made in great numbers. So what if we have the early MkIX, with the rounded tail and only the c wing type? It's a beautiful looking aircraft and many flew it to glory over better opposition. Let us do likewise chaps.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Euan Emblin

[horseback]

I'm not sure how much the 1943 flavor of the Spit IX ED is giving us will be felt in online competition. It appears that most of the online combat will be taking place at altitudes where the Spit's (any '43 era Spit's) power to weight ratio and maneuverability will be most useful, unlike the P-51D's performance, which is at its best above 7km, compared to what the 190D or 109K can do. The historical trend was for combat to go higher and the results were affected by maintainability, pilot training and relative ignorance of the other guys' capabilities, which cannot be simulated.

 

In any case, the real-life capabilities of any simulated aircraft cannot be fully depicted when the control layout is tailored by the player to his own taste which nullifies a given aircraft's superior ergonomics and pilot comfort and there is no, ah, for lack of a better word, "feel" for the responsiveness of the aircraft in the seat of the pants and resistance of the stick, which both the Mustang and the Spit were notable for.

 

cheers

 

horseback

Edited November 9, 2016 by horseback
no signature

[DB 605]

I'd say it will be close match to K4 at low altitudes. Gotta make sure not to run out of MW50 too soon, that's for sure :D

 

[Kurfürst]

If you run out of MW-50, it means you are still as fast as him, except he is about to run out of fuel in a minute or two. ;)

 

Sooo... bis zum Enddeciliter! :D

[Krupi]

If you run out of MW-50, it means you are still as fast as him, except he is about to run out of fuel in a minute or two. ;)

 

Sooo... bis zum Enddeciliter! :D

 

That is if the luftwaffe even had enough fuel to even get airborne of course :megalol:

 

Lack of MW50 reduces performance quite a bit ;) also we wont be flying over the channel

Edited November 9, 2016 by Krupi

[Solty]

I think you have to create your own server and play some "matched" games between, let's say, BF109 vs F15.. you take the F15..

You don't understand that DCS is not about you having a "matching" aircraft to play with, but to have an aircraft that matches real life flight data.

Let's keep the discussions in these parameters..

Spoken like the true 109K player.

 

Actually that real life flight data comfirms that allied aircraft should have more powerful engine settings. So your point is moot.

 

Secondly, you are not the one that makes rules on what people should talk about. And I am only pointing out that the truth is, that it requires less skill from the German side to win a fight against an allied airplane. Doesn't matter whether it's the Mustang or the Spitfire.

[DefaultFace]

How many times has ED said that the increased power settings are coming? Do we really need to use it as an excuse for everything? Also how do engine settings have anything to do with what amazing said?

 

That second part is also just blatantly untrue.

[rel4y]

Spoken like the true 109K player.

 

Actually that real life flight data comfirms that allied aircraft should have more powerful engine settings. So your point is moot.

 

Secondly, you are not the one that makes rules on what people should talk about. And I am only pointing out that the truth is, that it requires less skill from the German side to win a fight against an allied airplane. Doesn't matter whether it's the Mustang or the Spitfire.

 

What?!

 

Real real life data confirms the overwhelming majority of all P-51s in WWII used 67 inches max and still pilots were not crying around. Theres two facts for you.

 

As said innumerous times before you will be getting your 72 inches and I suspect that will change neither the relative performance of the P-51 nor your personal perception of inferiority.

 

And yes the Spit will most likely perform better than the P-51 vs the german planes because it is just like them about a ton lighter than the invincible P-51 while having the same british designed engine.

[BIGNEWY]

guys you are off topic

 

Unless it is DCS Spitfire Mk IX performance related take it somewhere else.

 

thanks

[Solty]

@rel4y

Real life data confirms that most air combat 1944, occurred during US 8th AAF bombing campaigns.

 

Real life data confirms that Spitfire is 40mph slower while using the same engine as the Mustang and even if Spit used a 25lbs boost it still would be slower. P51 has better dive acceleration and energy retention, therefore better zoom and is a more stable gun platform with better high speed maneuverability.

 

It shows how limited your understanding of air combat is. The Spit IX will dominate the horizontal plain and many 109 pilots that only go for turn as both offensive and defensive tactic will be in big trouble. Those that fly fast and extend after an attack will be safe.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Solty

[Krupi]

Sloty you really need to stop defending the Mustang no one is saying it is a rubbish aircraft, it was designed to fulfil a role, long range escort and it filled that role perfectly.

 

The problem is until we get AI Bombers it will be low and out of its comfort zone in the current dogfight scenario.

 

The Spitfire we are getting was designed to fulfil the opposite role medium to low sweeps over enemy territory, as has been mentioned before if the Spitfire and P51 pilots work together the 109 and 190 pilots will find themselves in trouble.

 

The 109 will be forced to keep the speed up as the Spitfire is more than a match for the 109 in terms of maneuverability.

 

It doesn't matter which aircraft you are in it is who spots who first that has the advantage, whether that be pressing the attack or running because you are at a disadvantage and biding your time until you have the advantage.

[Nerd1000]

If you run out of MW-50, it means you are still as fast as him, except he is about to run out of fuel in a minute or two. ;)

 

Sooo... bis zum Enddeciliter! :D

Surely at that point you'd be low on fuel yourself? It's not like the MW50 replaces your normal petrol, indeed it works because it allows you to burn more of the stuff! Fuel capacity of the two planes isn't particularly different: 88 gal for the 109, 85 gal for the Spit, and the 109 has a much bigger displacement engine delivering more power, which makes higher fuel consumption a certainty (unless the Merlin was abnormally inefficient, and I've seen nothing that suggests that was the case).

[Solty]

Sloty you really need to stop defending the Mustang no one is saying it is a rubbish aircraft, it was designed to fulfil a role, long range escort and it filled that role perfectly.

 

The problem is until we get AI Bombers it will be low and out of its comfort zone in the current dogfight scenario.

 

The Spitfire we are getting was designed to fulfil the opposite role medium to low sweeps over enemy territory, as has been mentioned before if the Spitfire and P51 pilots work together the 109 and 190 pilots will find themselves in trouble.

 

The 109 will be forced to keep the speed up as the Spitfire is more than a match for the 109 in terms of maneuverability.

 

It doesn't matter which aircraft you are in it is who spots who first that has the advantage, whether that be pressing the attack or running because you are at a disadvantage and biding your time until you have the advantage.

It's Solty. And read rel4y's post if you claim "no one is saying".

 

Secondly, the Spitfire was made an interceptor. It was suppose to fit the RAF doctrine of fast and hard hitting aircraft.

 

The British air doctrine was certain that if one puts enough fighters, with enough guns in a formation against enemy bomber formation, their massed firepower will be enough to stop the bombing and put to rest the myth of "the bomber always gets through". The problem was, their whole doctine of close formation flying was usless in real life air combat, and when they realised that, the Spitfire could show it's true potential.

 

It was not designed to go over enemy territory and do low level fighting. The airplane had a very good Supercharger and was capable of good performance at altitude and more importantly, its range is so short it can hardly do any sweeps, not to mention bombing, with its very low bomb load.

 

In case of our IXc and P-51D both of those airplanes have the same exact engine Merlin 66. I do not see how one is strictly for high alt and the other for low-medium. Especially that Merlin 66 was made to boost the low-level performance of the previous version. Also, as I said the Mustang is faster at SL than the Spitfire, about 40mph.

 

If thats the case and its only about SA, why do we see this occur:

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2927768&postcount=243

Edited November 10, 2016 by Solty

[arglmauf]

If thats the case and its only about SA, why do we see this occur:

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2927768&postcount=243

 

Because lopsided matchup is lopsided. The P51 is fighting in situations it's clearly disadvantaged in. That's why the Spitfire (at least I hope) will be so important:

It's not there to chase down 109s, it's there to deny them the turnfighting advantage. When the 109 is forced to play for distance, the P51 can play its strength against it.

It's the interaction between P51 and the Spit and how it affects the way the Luftwaffe planes can fight that is key (again, hoping it pans out like that).

[Krupi]

Yes it was an interceptor however like the 109 and 190 it was just as good at sweeps once given a jettison fuel tank. Remember a modified PR IX could go to Berlin and back.

 

The engine was tweaked for low to medium heights hence the LF IX, this meant reworking the supercharger hardly the kind of mods you would perform if it was still predominantly an interceptor.

 

The Mustang engine was designed to perform at higher altitudes. Regarding the speed if you look at the specifications of the F 61, HF 63 compared to the LF 66 the top speed of the LF IX is lower.

 

Also the aircraft was used as a fighter bomber quite a bit once the luftwaffe threat had died and they were freed to fill other roles so I don't think you truly appreciate that once the battle of Britain was over the aircraft development changed from defensive to attack.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Krupi

[tom1502]

The Spitfire Mk I/II:

Developed purely as an interceptor

 

After that their primary focus is still on intercepting aircraft but in different scenarios. They developed to counter different threats and to operate in different conditions. So there are LF variants with engines tuned to give their best performance at low levels, there are HF variants for higher altitude operations etc etc. To claim that every Spitfire was just an interceptor because the original was is misleading.

 

This is an LF Mk IXc. Low level optimised, a development of the Spitfire Mk V with a more powerful engine to help with parity for the Fw190A. If you're running away in a Bf109K or anf Fw190D you'll get away. If you hang around to turn and burn, you'll likely lose.

 

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

[DefaultFace]

If thats the case and its only about SA, why do we see this occur:

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2927768&postcount=243

 

Because there are usually far fewer Mustang pilots than there are 109/190 pilots. And of these few many are players who are new to the P-51 or new to DCS WW2 aircraft. I regularly see Mustangs turn and run, giving up their advantage after less than one turn in even or advantageous energy setups.

 

As it stands a 109 pilot who mismanages his energy will certainly lose to a P-51. If the spit is as good a dogfighter as many people believe it to be (which I really hope it is) it should make a good match for the 109s especially if they get greedy and start bleeding the speed off.

 

All this being said it hasn't been released and most of this is speculation until we've flown it ourselves. Sith and Bignewy's comments are encouraging and i'd be interested in hearing their comments on the relative performance of the aircraft in a dogfight although I can understand why they wouldn't be allowed to comment at this point.

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to flying both and to getting my a** whooped by the best of the RAF! :pilotfly:

[Holbeach]

The Spit Mk 9 was also a very successful, close support, dive bomber, with 2 x 250 lb and 1 x 500 lb bombs and was used extensively in Italy.

 

..

[Tomsk]

As it stands a 109 pilot who mismanages his energy will certainly lose to a P-51. If the spit is as good a dogfighter as many people believe it to be (which I really hope it is) it should make a good match for the 109s especially if they get greedy and start bleeding the speed off.

 

Indeed. So much is made of differences between planes, and having a better plane helps for sure, but my experience has been that it's not usually the deciding factor. Maybe everyone who flies in DCS is top-tier "experten", but my experience in War Thunder has been that the differences in skill are much larger than differences between planes.

 

I'm one of the better pilots in the sim mode of War Thunder, I usually expect to come top of the board, and the people I fly against are not all clueless. None the less, a while ago I flew some duels against a former squadmate of mine ... he wiped the floor with me, every time. He did it in the FW-190 A5, when I was in a Spit IX. He had no energy advantage, he just out fought me in the dogfight. The Spit should be much better at that game than the FW-190, and the 190 in WT is notoriously unforgiving, but he was just better than me ... and so I lost. It was quite humbling, and since then I've thought less about what plane I'm flying ... and more about how I can fly it better.

[MaxDamage]

If you want a good energy fighter, you d better look elsewhere.

 

A good energy fighter is something that gains a lot of altitude after accelerating and then doing a vertical chandelle.

 

Depending on which exact opponent you face of course. But a 18 lbsq spitfire IX would be on par with something like a 1943 bf109g6 (non mw50 version). And it will lose ~300 m to a D9 or K4 easily. They can literally go vertical and leave a spitfire IX in dust.

 

If you combine it with some ~70-80 kmh horizontal speed diffirence, at this point the plane is pretty obsolete.

Edited November 10, 2016 by MaxDamage

[Krupi]

If you want a good energy fighter, you d better look elsewhere.

 

A good energy fighter is something that gains a lot of altitude after accelerating and then doing a vertical chandelle.

 

Depending on which exact opponent you face of course. But a 18 lbsq spitfire IX would be on par with something like a 1943 bf109g6 (non mw50 version). And it will lose ~300 m to a D9 or K4 easily. They can literally go vertical and leave a spitfire IX in dust.

 

If you combine it with some ~70-80 kmh horizontal speed diffirence, at this point the plane is pretty obsolete.

 

You do realise that the IX had an incredible climb rate?

 

It certainly won't be left in the 'dust' by either the 190 or P51 only loosing out to the 109 (Can someone remind me of the 109 climb)

 

Spitfire IX +18lbs 4200ft/min (this actually went to 4700 on the +25lbs)

 

If the aircraft was 'obsolete' then the XIV would have overtaken production of the IX this simply wasn't the case in 1944/45 when the allies had air supremacy

Edited November 10, 2016 by Krupi

[Krupi]

Actually it appears that the Spitfire will beat even the 109 climb.

 

Spitfire IX +18lbs 4200 ft/min

 

109 with MW50 3563 ft/min

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/planes/kurfurst/

 

P-51 ~3200 ft/min

 

D-9 ~3300 ft/min

 

I believe the above reflects initial climb rates...

Edited November 10, 2016 by Krupi