DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

[Yo-Yo]

Great stuff... and hoping all that shows up in the Sim... well knowing Yo-Yo... I am sure it will :)

 

Engine failure due to overheating on taxiing? You have it now but only without white puffs. :)

 

By the way, about +25 lb MP... I've found that R-R produced the engines suitable for +25 lb MP only by special order converting plain 66 for +25 lb (Mod 785). Maybe somebody knows what was converted - only MP regulator or some parts were replaced for higher load?

[NineLine]

Engine failure due to overheating on taxiing? You have it now but only without white puffs. :)

 

By the way, about +25 lb MP... I've found that R-R produced the engines suitable for +25 lb MP only by special order converting plain 66 for +25 lb (Mod 785). Maybe somebody knows what was converted - only MP regulator or some parts were replaced for higher load?

 

Well we need to talk about the white puffs again dont we ;)

[NineLine]

By the way, about +25 lb MP... I've found that R-R produced the engines suitable for +25 lb MP only by special order converting plain 66 for +25 lb (Mod 785). Maybe somebody knows what was converted - only MP regulator or some parts were replaced for higher load?

 

Is this what you mean Yo-Yo?

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html

 

To achieve this the following modifications are necessary:-

 

(a) Strengthening of engine mounting horseshoe internally and patch plate outside. Spitfire Modification No. 971 Drawing 35137 - Sheet 15.

(b) Modification of boost control by fitting stronger spring, new aneroid and adjusting stops to give + 18 lbs. at the gate and + 25 lbs. full open.

© Use of special fuel, 160 Grade. (Both lice lead content and M.M.A. type has been used during tests).

Except for these modifications, the engine was a standard production Merlin 66, the aircraft being a normal Spitfire IX, with 10'9" diameter Hydulignum propeller and standard tropical type of air intake, operating as temperate. The aircraft was flown at a weight of 7,234 lbs. (84 galls. total fuel capacity).

[Yo-Yo]

Is this what you mean Yo-Yo?

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html

 

Thanks, so external 3D model must be different then?

[NineLine]

Thanks, so external 3D model must be different then?

 

It would seem there would be some external differences, at least if the "hood" was up, and in the cockpit?

[Yo-Yo]

"and patch plate outside" - is it?

[NineLine]

"and patch plate outside" - is it?

 

I am assuming something to do with the Engine mount, but I could be way off, if someone here doesnt know I will ask my contact for Spits and get back to you :)

[NineLine]

Ok, found it, now just trying to get a photo or drawing reference of it to see if it will be visible on the 3D model... stay tuned kids.

 

Edit: Whoohoo, I am acquiring the drawing with the part.... I love researching this stuff :)

Edited October 16, 2013 by NineLine

[NineLine]

Ok, sorry Yo-Yo, I know I am talking to you in a couple different spots but the info I have dug up on this is that it was a field mod, and might not have seen much use beyond testing. As in the Mk IX might not have used this boost mod beyond this test report. Unless you have other indications it was used in service, it might not be worth modelling unless its something that can be optional?

[JHAT]

Hey Yo-Yo,

 

I know of two spitfire specialists who could perhaps help you with making some of the more specific details of the Spitfire more clear. I do not know how qualified they may be to help with performance and systems as what I read is mostly regarding static models, but they act as industry consultants for scale model manufactures and show a lot of knowledge over at Britmodeller and Hyperscale about the different variants, sub-variants, mods etc. of the Spitfire.

 

One ist Edgar Brooks (as Edgar at the Britmodeller Forums and Edgar Brooks over at forum. largescaleplanes.com) and the other is Roy Sutherland over at Hyperscale.

 

I do not know them, but you could register at those forums and maybe PM them if you find it suitable.

 

Just my 2c.

[NineLine]

Ok, sorry Yo-Yo, I know I am talking to you in a couple different spots but the info I have dug up on this is that it was a field mod, and might not have seen much use beyond testing. As in the Mk IX might not have used this boost mod beyond this test report. Unless you have other indications it was used in service, it might not be worth modelling unless its something that can be optional?

 

 

Of course that might not be the case now that I look at the drawing for the plate, atleast in the case of the plate it looks like it was used on more than just the Mk IX and more than just for the testing of the above report... so in the case of the plate, its probably safe to have it portrayed on the 3D model....

[DieHard]

You think that Mk IX will make you an absolute winner?

I have bad news for those who consider P-51 too stick sensitive and thus prone to stall... :)

As Spitfire has neutral stability there is only 3/4" of stick travel to stall as it was reported by NACA. Really silk hands or full scale joystick required... :)

It will be no mercy, hardcore only - all will be as Mitchell designed.

 

I flew most of the aircraft in Aces High over a 5 year period. The DCSW P-51D is much more fun to fly with its peculiar sensitivities compared to Aces High. The Aces High Spits were easy to snap-spin in certain circumstances, and a bit of a challenge to recover it. Its narrow undercarriage made it tricky to land except at slow speeds. But it is a great turn fighter. I can't wait until we get a Spit to have fun with.

Sorry, I am not a real life flyer to know the real differences.

[DieHard]

Well because of ED/RRG I think someone will need to design full scale Flight Sticks then :)

 

Oh wait... someone already did ;)

 

http://www.spitsim.co.uk/

 

Mark IX Spitfire sim-pit

https://www.google.com/search?q=Mark+IX+Spitfire+sim-pit&client=firefox-a&hs=5Zh&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=2ZJrUqSDGcnLkQeos4HIAQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=627

[Kwiatek]

No, it was 3/4 INCH travel. Typical requirement for fighters was 4 inches.

 

But Spitfire could be still flown with much more stick back. Also we should note that Spitfire Mark V had the worse longitutadal stability from most known Spitfire versions.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Kwiatek

[Mogster]

For me the DCS P51 stalls and snap rolls without much warning, it sounds like the Spit should give you more warning and then still let you push the limit with the stick shaking without rolling.

[bongodriver]

For me the DCS P51 stalls and snap rolls without much warning, it sounds like the Spit should give you more warning and then still let you push the limit with the stick shaking without rolling.

 

 

Exactly right, and the evidence is sourced from the same article that some would use to the contrary for some strange reason.

[NineLine]

Exactly right, and the evidence is sourced from the same article that some would use to the contrary for some strange reason.

 

 

Well this is what excites me about ED's FM and how the flight model is derived from the data they collect, that the FM forms from the hard data, meaning that you enter all data in and what you end up with is a FM that matches the real world aircraft, instead of taking absolutes and trying to tweak a bunch of code to get to those numbers... if any of that made sense... and I apologize to Yo-Yo upfront for such a simplistic description of what he does :)

[gavagai]

Pretty much any WW2 fighter should give more stall warning than the P-51. I'm confident that ED will make a great Spitfire. It might not be the easy-mode plane that we're used to from other sims, but it will still be deadly and I will actually want to fly it.

[Bounder]

I'm confident that ED will make a great Spitfire. It might not be the easy-mode plane that we're used to from other sims, but it will still be deadly and I will actually want to fly it.

 

+1 although I have to say that's pretty much a given for any a/c ED make! Can't wait!

[NineLine]

Cleaned up some OT stuff, lets keep it on the Spitfire....

[Sharpe]

Now I'm curious; would any further testing include the same approach/cooperation from TFC as done with the Mustang?

[BabyJail]

The 150 grade fuel will ruin the fine balance we can see between Dora and Mustang. Additionally we have no information what was the cost for 75 inches boost regarding engine lifetime and reliability.

 

Anyway, probably Spit Mk IX with Merlin 66 can use it. Let's see...

Does that mean the Spit we will get on launch will be an L.F Mk.IX variant? Didnt the F Mk. IX use a different Merlin variant?

 

If I am wrong, please correct me. After all, I am a noob and here to learn primarily. :book:

[JtD]

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

[Yob]

Sorry if this has already been said.

 

The Spitfire had a bent wing, or twisted for want of a better word, this allowed it to buffet and shake.

 

Because of this twisted wing the spitfire was loved by it's pilots for knowing when it was about to stall.

[Yob]

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

 

Yes, but don't forget that they were practically the same. the 61-69 Merlin engines. The main reason for the different numbering is because of slight differences in tuning and mixture, and different air filters and other stuff like Super charges, and tuning.

 

Remember the LF also had clipped wings, which improved it's role rate at Low Attitude. But also remember that the LF where capable of flying at High attitudes and did preform well, but not as effectively because of there tuning.

 

Cheers

Eli`Jah