DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

[Aluminum Donkey]

113 pages of discussion for a module that's not even released yet!

 

That's how you know it's gonna kick ass.

 

Betcha the MiG-29 PFM will be even better :) (Honestly, I'd rather have that first)

[DSR_T-800]

I don't think the Spitfire is going to do very well against the competition, especially against the Fw-190... an Anton would be more than enough to combat a Spitfire IX, never mind the Dora.

[OxideMako]

First combat experience.

I love this bird!

 

I honestly have never envied someone so much! Looks absolutely stunning.

[Sporg]

Danish Mk IX

 

I hope ED will make Danish skins. :)

 

The Royal Danish Air Force, RDAF, had Spitfire Mk IX from 1948, but most of them were the HF version.

 

However, the very first of them, NH417, was actually an LF. :)

That one got the number 41-401.

 

I found some colour pictures of No. 41-407 which shows how they looked:

 

 

The story of the RDAF spitfires can be found here:

http://www.spitfire.dk/rdaf_eng.htm

 

The story of other Danish spitfires and Danish pilots during the war can be found here:

http://www.spitfire.dk/danske_eng.htm

[Alicatt]

I hope ED will make Danish skins. :)

 

The Royal Danish Air Force, RDAF, had Spitfire Mk IX from 1948, but most of them were the HF version.

 

However, the very first of them, NH417, was actually an LF. :)

That one got the number 41-401.

 

I found some colour pictures of No. 41-407 which shows how they looked:

 

 

The story of the RDAF spitfires can be found here:

http://www.spitfire.dk/rdaf_eng.htm

 

The story of other Danish spitfires and Danish pilots during the war can be found here:

http://www.spitfire.dk/danske_eng.htm

 

Oh look NO ANTENNA WIRE :thumbup:

 

Hope they get rid of the antenna wire, as the Spitfire had already transitioned to VHF communications by then so no need for a long wire HF antenna. They had stopped using wire antennas by the end of 1940.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-masts-and-aerials.html/2

Edited April 11, 2016 by Alicatt

[IronJockel]

I don't think the Spitfire is going to do very well against the competition, especially against the Fw-190... an Anton would be more than enough to combat a Spitfire IX, never mind the Dora.

 

Considering how most pilots fly in online pvp on public servers, i am tending to say that quite the opposite will be the case. After all this thing turns a lot better than what the germans have to offer and still has a good climbrate.

[NORTHMAN]

Sorry if it was discuss before! I'm a bit lost in the 1000+ post :doh:

 

I have question about engine management. I know that the MKIX was powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin engine, the Mustang have the same engine. In the mustang, the engine management is a bit difficult and I suppose it will be the same thing about the Spitfire. Anyone can confirm it or am I wrong!!! :helpsmilie:

Edited April 11, 2016 by NORTHMAN

[saburo_cz]

According to Pilot's Notes it will be very similar, i hope :smilewink:.

for instance, page with starting procedure

[TheJay15]

I don't think the Spitfire is going to do very well against the competition, especially against the Fw-190... an Anton would be more than enough to combat a Spitfire IX, never mind the Dora.

 

The Anton and the Spit MkIX were a fairly even match which many would even argue the spitfire was the superior aircraft. The spit had an overall higher top speed but the Fw was able to accellerate faster (especially in a dive). The Spit held the advantage in turn radius but lost out in a roll and in general "maneuverability" (this term is used often and it is incredibly vague but I digress).

 

The conclusion was the Spitfire IX compared favourably with the Fw 190 provided the Spitfire had the initiative, it had "undoubtedly a good chance of shooting the Fw 190 down". (Price 2009, p. 51.)

 

It is with this information that I would conclude that the Spitfire and the Dora would still, in the MP arena at least, be competitive against one another. I say this because the Dora simply represents a slightly faster Anton (408mph vs. 426mph) *note the speeds may not be perfect as sources seem to conflict* and since most people in an online arena fail to ever reach the top speed of any aircraft (most often they don't even manage to fly it to its strengths) I doubt that any of the advantages the engine upgrade the Dora offers will make much of a difference in combat especially considering that most of our combat will be taking place at lower altitudes where the Dora was not intended to operate.

 

 

Now to be clear I have no intention of picking on you or any such thing I simply am getting tired of people stipulating that the Spitfire will not be competitive against the Dora or the Kurfurst (the K is a discussion for another day). I just don't believe that this assessment is fair especially considering how poorly the online environment represents actual historical air combat.

 

If anyone finds any flaws in my points please point them out. I would love to see what I may be perceiving incorrectly.

[DSR_T-800]

Considering how most pilots fly in online pvp on public servers, i am tending to say that quite the opposite will be the case. After all this thing turns a lot better than what the germans have to offer and still has a good climbrate.

 

That is true, but to any pilot that knows how to properly fly a Dora will have no issue with a Spitfire :). A plane that is 40mph slower than a Dora is relatively pretty much at a stand still xD. Then you take into account for zoom and dive capabilities...

[TheJay15]

Could not the same be said for any pilot who knows how to effectively fly the Spitfire? If a Spitfire pilot obtains advantages before a fight he will still stand a good chance against a lower energy Dora especially if the Spit has a friend or two. I also see many Doras who attempt to turn fight which I suspect will change once the Spitfire is released (although I don't necessarily garentee that because I have seen many a Mustang pilot try to out turn a 109 at low altitudes).

 

Also most sources I have seen cite the Mk IX at around 410 mph which is no where near 40 mph slower than the Dora?

[DSR_T-800]

The Anton and the Spit MkIX were a fairly even match which many would even argue the spitfire was the superior aircraft. The spit had an overall higher top speed but the Fw was able to accellerate faster (especially in a dive). The Spit held the advantage in turn radius but lost out in a roll and in general "maneuverability" (this term is used often and it is incredibly vague but I digress).

 

The conclusion was the Spitfire IX compared favourably with the Fw 190 provided the Spitfire had the initiative, it had "undoubtedly a good chance of shooting the Fw 190 down". (Price 2009, p. 51.)

 

It is with this information that I would conclude that the Spitfire and the Dora would still, in the MP arena at least, be competitive against one another. I say this because the Dora simply represents a slightly faster Anton (408mph vs. 426mph) *note the speeds may not be perfect as sources seem to conflict* and since most people in an online arena fail to ever reach the top speed of any aircraft (most often they don't even manage to fly it to its strengths) I doubt that any of the advantages the engine upgrade the Dora offers will make much of a difference in combat especially considering that most of our combat will be taking place at lower altitudes where the Dora was not intended to operate.

 

 

Now to be clear I have no intention of picking on you or any such thing I simply am getting tired of people stipulating that the Spitfire will not be competitive against the Dora or the Kurfurst (the K is a discussion for another day). I just don't believe that this assessment is fair especially considering how poorly the online environment represents actual historical air combat.

 

If anyone finds any flaws in my points please point them out. I would love to see what I may be perceiving incorrectly.

 

Sure the Mk IX was faster at higher altitudes, but the Anton still kept its speed advantage at lower altitudes. In the current multiplayer setting, the edge would be with the Fw-190 since all dog fights are on the deck. The advantage will only be more obvious because the Dora was much faster than the Anton at all altitudes. The Spitfire's massive acceleration and rate of climb advantage will be diluted with the Fw-190D-9's MW-50s. I wouldn't go as far as to say the Dora was not intended as a low altitude bird. Considering it was used for covering Me-262s taking off and landing. The Dora's top speed on the deck is really only rivaled by the Tempest V, or a P-51 with 150 octane, two of which we do not have in game.

 

http://i.imgur.com/Qo0se47.png

[TheJay15]

The Spitfire IX restored parity in speed; the Spitfire had an 8 mph advantage at 8,000 ft; 5 mph faster at 15,000 ft; and a 5 to 7 mph advantage at 25,000 ft. The Fw 190 retained speed advantages at 2,000 ft and 18,000 ft where it held a lead of 7 to 8 and 3 mph respectively. In the climb, they were equal, the Spitfire being slightly faster. However, once the 22,000 ft mark was reached, the Spitfire climbing rate increased, while the Fw 190s rapidly fell away. (Price 2009, p. 49.)

 

As you can see here neither aircraft ever held any appreciable speed advantage but more often than not the Spitfire had a small advantage that would give almost no advantage in combat.

 

Just because one aircraft is faster than another does not mean that the faster aircraft is objectively better. If the Foke Wulf is so monstrously fast at low altitudes even against the P-51 then why have I seen it get killed time and time again trying to run away from enemies? Good performance will only carry you so far no matter how good an aircraft is. May I remind you that the hoplessly outclassed F4F wildcat maintained a kill to death ratio of nearly 6:1 against the objectively superior Zero-sen.

[GrapeJam]

The Spitfire IX restored parity in speed; the Spitfire had an 8 mph advantage at 8,000 ft; 5 mph faster at 15,000 ft; and a 5 to 7 mph advantage at 25,000 ft. The Fw 190 retained speed advantages at 2,000 ft and 18,000 ft where it held a lead of 7 to 8 and 3 mph respectively. In the climb, they were equal, the Spitfire being slightly faster. However, once the 22,000 ft mark was reached, the Spitfire climbing rate increased, while the Fw 190s rapidly fell away. (Price 2009, p. 49.)

 

As you can see here neither aircraft ever held any appreciable speed advantage but more often than not the Spitfire had a small advantage that would give almost no advantage in combat.

 

Just because one aircraft is faster than another does not mean that the faster aircraft is objectively better. If the Foke Wulf is so monstrously fast at low altitudes even against the P-51 then why have I seen it get killed time and time again trying to run away from enemies? Good performance will only carry you so far no matter how good an aircraft is. May I remind you that the hoplessly outclassed F4F wildcat maintained a kill to death ratio of nearly 6:1 against the objectively superior Zero-sen.

 

The FW 190 that was being compared in your book was the older A3 model, the contemporary 190 model to the Spitfire LF IXc would be the A8 model which was much faster at medium and low altitude.

[DSR_T-800]

The Spitfire IX restored parity in speed; the Spitfire had an 8 mph advantage at 8,000 ft; 5 mph faster at 15,000 ft; and a 5 to 7 mph advantage at 25,000 ft. The Fw 190 retained speed advantages at 2,000 ft and 18,000 ft where it held a lead of 7 to 8 and 3 mph respectively. In the climb, they were equal, the Spitfire being slightly faster. However, once the 22,000 ft mark was reached, the Spitfire climbing rate increased, while the Fw 190s rapidly fell away. (Price 2009, p. 49.)

 

As you can see here neither aircraft ever held any appreciable speed advantage but more often than not the Spitfire had a small advantage that would give almost no advantage in combat.

 

Just because one aircraft is faster than another does not mean that the faster aircraft is objectively better. If the Foke Wulf is so monstrously fast at low altitudes even against the P-51 then why have I seen it get killed time and time again trying to run away from enemies? Good performance will only carry you so far no matter how good an aircraft is. May I remind you that the hoplessly outclassed F4F wildcat maintained a kill to death ratio of nearly 6:1 against the objectively superior Zero-sen.

 

As stated by GrapJam, the comparisons should be that of a Fw-190A-8 and Spitfire Mk IXc. The "hopelessly" outclassed F4F maintained such a Win to loss ratio because of the exact same reason the Fw-190 was so effective against the Spitfire. Initially American pilots whom were very inexperienced(relative to the Japanese) were using Turn and Burn tactics against the Japanese, this is why the F4F was getting its butt handed to it initially. Later American pilots learned not to dog fight the Zero, of any other Japanese plane, for that matter. American pilots flew the F6F the same way the Germans flew the Fw-190. They flew strictly by their advantages. BTW, when I mean dog fighting I mean turning and burning. The Zero and Spitfire may have had the edge in turning, acceleration and rate of climb, but the Fw-190 and F6F had the advantages of diving, zooming, and high speed agility(light control surfaces, like the Ailerons and Elevator). This allowed them to out maneuver their opponents at higher speeds. These factors allow the Fw-190 and F6F the ability to determine how the fight is played... they can play the aggressor while the Spitfire and Zero are forced to play the defender. The large dive and speed advantage gives the Fw-190 and F6F to dive away at will and leaving the Spitfire and Zero in the dust... assuming they've got altitude to do so.

 

Now back to the Fw-190D-9 and Spitfire Mk IX. :) These exact advantages that were held by the Fw-190 Antons series are now even more prominent with the Dora.

[Decibel dB]

Considering how most pilots fly in online pvp on public servers, i am tending to say that quite the opposite will be the case. After all this thing turns a lot better than what the germans have to offer and still has a good climbrate.

 

I also see many Doras who attempt to turn fight which I suspect will change once the Spitfire is released (although I don't necessarily garentee that because I have seen many a Mustang pilot try to out turn a 109 at low altitudes).

 

I don't want to derail the discussion about the Spit here but I want to say, I found that weird initially to witness low deck dogfight with a Mustang or a Dora but to be able to exploit the speed and surprise your opponent one's need to see him at a proper distance, that is not the case with DCS unfortunately. I end up loosing my contact all the time if I saw any. Like most now I do the same :doh:

Edited April 12, 2016 by Decibel dB

[TheJay15]

I guess I am just trying to make the point here that we shouldn't disparage the Spit just because it isn't exactly up to snuff with the Luftwaffe's dream machine. If spit pilots just fly smart and never fight fair, always have a dirty trick, they can still be successful fighters even though they aren't in the fastest thing around (being the prettiest makes up for this I suppose).

 

I just worry that this whole attitude will make it so people who want to fly a Spit will complain that it is underpowered and that they need something better thus leading to some goofy power creep effect where no one will actually be flying proper WWII aircraft, rather they will all be flying some wonder plains just for the sake of "fairness".

 

I suppose that I should probably reserve my worries for when the aircraft is actually released.

[scotchegg]

Are there any quick and easy guides to fighting against boom 'n zoom tactics?

[WinterH]

Well power creep for Spitfire already is on it's way in form of VEAO's Spitfire XIV which will be better than everything at pretty much everything right :).

 

While the Spitfire IX will be slowest of current warbirds, it's exceptional climbrate and turning ability would count for something I'm sure. Also in my opinion, Spitfire will have the best firepower in all warbirds. 20mm Hispanos are simply better than MG151/20, and are much longer ranged than 30mm MK108.

 

Fw pilots would need to be very disciplined with strict high speed b&z attacks, and not linger about. 109 on the other hand can somewhat do b&z but may also stay around, and when things start to get sour for it may again just fly away. So I think if Spitfire pilots can use their birds strengths I think it will prove an interesting fight for everybody.

[GrapeJam]

The hispanoes on the Spitfire only had 240 rounds, and they're far apart while the mg 151s on the FW190D had 500 rounds and are centerlined.

[IronJockel]

Also in my opinion, Spitfire will have the best firepower in all warbirds. 20mm Hispanos are simply better than MG151/20

 

Why? Mg151/20 fires mineshells and can be synchronized with the propeller.

Plus the 190 has mor than twice as many 20mm rounds.

So you got less leathal shells, not centered (less accurate), plus you need to be a lot more trigger disciplined.

I'm not sure about the higher muzzle velocity and somewhat higher firerate of the hispanos, being enough of an argument for the weapon to claim it is "simply better".

[WinterH]

Mineshells are nice, so is the more centered position. But higher muzzle velocity means longer range, better accuracy, more reliable hits in high deflection situations, and I would even argue overall harder hitting. As an added bonus I would expect them to be better at strafing too.

 

My opinion anyway.

 

Yes ammo count is a bit low, but 109s 30mm is also very low on ammo, and it rarely becomes an issue for people.

[Solty]

Could not the same be said for any pilot who knows how to effectively fly the Spitfire? If a Spitfire pilot obtains advantages before a fight he will still stand a good chance against a lower energy Dora especially if the Spit has a friend or two. I also see many Doras who attempt to turn fight which I suspect will change once the Spitfire is released (although I don't necessarily garentee that because I have seen many a Mustang pilot try to out turn a 109 at low altitudes).

 

Also most sources I have seen cite the Mk IX at around 410 mph which is no where near 40 mph slower than the Dora?

Well yes and no.

 

Yes, because you can certainly use altitude and positioning advantage to get a kill.

 

No, because in a fight where the 190D9 is aware of your presence, all the pilot has to do is keep his speed and extend. And if the Dora starts a dive... good luck catching her in a Spit.

 

Spitfire will no doubt have at least one advantage and that is turn performance at lower speeds. But if the Dora wants, she can stay safe and never get hit just by flying fast.

 

Some airplanes rely on their speed more than the other. Fw190D9 vs Spitfire in a typical dogfight of turning and twisting the Spitfire will eat the Dora alive. But because Dora is faster and do not have to turn with the Spit, she can dictate how the fight will play out.

[GrapeJam]

Mineshells are nice, so is the more centered position. But higher muzzle velocity means longer range, better accuracy, more reliable hits in high deflection situations, and I would even argue overall harder hitting. As an added bonus I would expect them to be better at strafing too.

 

My opinion anyway.

 

Yes ammo count is a bit low, but 109s 30mm is also very low on ammo, and it rarely becomes an issue for people.

 

 

Not when they're converged to hit at only a certain range.

[Nerd1000]

Why? Mg151/20 fires mineshells and can be synchronized with the propeller.

Plus the 190 has mor than twice as many 20mm rounds.

So you got less leathal shells, not centered (less accurate), plus you need to be a lot more trigger disciplined.

I'm not sure about the higher muzzle velocity and somewhat higher firerate of the hispanos, being enough of an argument for the weapon to claim it is "simply better".

At the risk of starting a big argument, the effectiveness of mineshells vs normal HEI rounds is debatable. They have much more explosive (and thus a lot more destructive energy) but the thin drawn body lacks mass to be thrown out as fragments. Shockwaves are generally poor energy carriers compared to fragments, as the shock will lose power much more quickly over distance and cannot penetrate objects like a fragment can, so it's up in the air as to which approach worked better in practice. IMO You'd need statistical data to make a proper judgment.

 

Also, doesn't the MG151 have a higher fire rate than the Hispano? from what I've read the MG151/20 fires 750rpm while the Hispano Mk II fires 600rpm. Obviously the synchronization would slow it down a bit, but Kurfurst has claimed on other forums that the Germans used an electrical synchronization system that allowed very small losses in rate of fire (and he certainly knows more than me about the specifics of WWII German gun installations).