ED Team NineLine Posted April 18, 2016 ED Team Posted April 18, 2016 I will be happy to fly new Warbirds in the context of WWII (maps, technology) regardless of their "performances" as long as their are accurate :D Amen, if they told me they were switching to a IIb I would be just as happy :) I am just happy for a Spitfire... and I dont want all future decisions to be locked into the small window of 1944, least for me personally... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Friedrich-4B Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 What missions were assigned to each MKIX and MKIV back then ? The L.F Mk IX and related Mk XVI were primarily used as fighters and fighter-bombers by 2 TAF with a secondary role of Tactical Photo Reconnaissance; the XIV was used a medium-high altitude fighter and Tac P.R aircraft. The other RAF single-seat, single engine aircraft were the Hawker Typhoon, which was primarily a fighter-bomber, and Hawker Tempest, which was primarily a low-medium altitude fighter. The Mustang III was also used as a fighter and fighter-bomber by 2 TAF, until the Mustang squadrons were transferred to ADGB to be used as long-range bomber escorts (I think it is kind of a smart move to release aircraft not already available in others simulators, like IL2 - CoD, BoS and BoM, if it is what is intended of course, otherwise it doesn't bother me at all). Again, I am just being curious. I will be happy to fly new Warbirds in the context of the WWII (maps, technology) regardless of their "performances" :D Ditto - the IX promises to be one of the best Spitfire FMs available anywhere, so I'm not getting worked up "competitiveness" - I'm just going to enjoy the ride. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
Kal-El Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Amen, if they told me they were switching to a IIb I would be just as happy :) I am just happy for a Spitfire... and I dont want all future decisions to be locked into the small window of 1944, least for me personally... My thoughts exactly. This can be used as the bomber, stuka killer, while the others take care of the escort. Just as the Hurricane was to BoB. Specs: i7-4790K @4.00 ghz, EVGA 2080ti , 16GB ram, Samsung 512GB SSD x2. Gear: Virpil Alpha stick with Mongoos T-50CM2 throttle, Combat-Pro flight pedals, Track ir 5 & Reverb G2
Teldja Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Amen, if they told me they were switching to a IIb I would be just as happy :) I am just happy for a Spitfire... and I dont want all future decisions to be locked into the small window of 1944, least for me personally... Yes, that would be wonderful ! The more aircraft, the better ! And I hope it will be possible to (re)create historical campagne and to include and exclude aircraft. Because, this way it will always be possible to get the best immersive experience possible if some of us want that (that would be awesome). The L.F Mk IX and related Mk XVI were primarily used as fighters and fighter-bombers by 2 TAF with a secondary role of Tactical Photo Reconnaissance; the XIV was used a medium-high altitude fighter and Tac P.R aircraft. The other RAF single-seat, single engine aircraft were the Hawker Typhoon, which was primarily a fighter-bomber, and Hawker Tempest, which was primarily a low-medium altitude fighter. The Mustang III was also used as a fighter and fighter-bomber by 2 TAF, until the Mustang squadrons were transferred to ADGB to be used as long-range bomber escorts Ditto - the IX promises to be one of the best Spitfire FMs available anywhere, so I'm not getting worked up "competitiveness" - I'm just going to enjoy the ride. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, I read many article on Wikipedia but English is not my mother language and I got lost too many time in it. Looks like the Spitfire was used not only to shoot at things but also to gather intel ! I wish we could take some photo in a recon mission (operate a camera from WWII era) and bring the intel back to the base. :) Yes, I think I can understand what Krupi is trying to say regarding the Spitfire performance chart in the context of a pure competitive multiplayer experience (not sure about the 1944 context). Still we will get two Spitfire so will be able to choose the more suitable aircraft to complete the objective we want. :D And having fun is the primary objective for me. ;)
Teldja Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 My thoughts exactly. This can be used as the bomber, stuka killer, while the others take care of the escort. Just as the Hurricane was to BoB. Oh yes, because as much as I have enjoyed flying the Hurricane in IL2-CoD, I would much prefer fly a Spitfire to take down those pesky bombers ! :D
Legioneod Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Imo the spit is going to do very well in dogfights, it's just not going to be able to run away very much. I for one am going to love flying her, and when the 47 comes out I'll fly it most of the time. I will lose alot but at-least I'll enjoy flying her. I like flying underdogs because it makes winning a fight that much more rewarding.
Kal-El Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Oh yes, because as much as I have enjoyed flying the Hurricane in IL2-CoD, I would much prefer fly a Spitfire to take down those pesky bombers ! :D Choices!! choices!! what a wonderful problem you will have sir. Specs: i7-4790K @4.00 ghz, EVGA 2080ti , 16GB ram, Samsung 512GB SSD x2. Gear: Virpil Alpha stick with Mongoos T-50CM2 throttle, Combat-Pro flight pedals, Track ir 5 & Reverb G2
flare2000x Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 I cant wait to fly it personally, even if the opponents are superior. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS:WWII 1944 BACKER --- Fw. 190D-9 --- Bf. 109K-4 --- P-51D --- Spitfire! Specs: Intel i7-3770 @3.9 Ghz - NVidia GTX 960 - 8GB RAM - OCz Vertex 240GB SSD - Toshiba 1TB HDD - Corsair CX 600M Power Supply - MSI B75MA-P45 MoBo - Defender Cobra M5
Kurfürst Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 I want a spitfire IX, however I PAID (PAID A LOT) to get a 1944 scenario project that is what needs to be fixed... it is a simple as that. But you are going to get an late 1944 (CC. Ocotber 1944) scenario Project with the historical +18 lbs Spitfire IX, P-51D, P-47D, Me 109K and Fw 190D and Me 262 with their historically relevant equipment and setup. The list is of course by no means complete and we could have small series and rarely used variants, but in my opinion its still a good setup. Perhaps read up a bit what was actually used in 1944. And the Spit IX will be fine. Its a good claimber and turner, if maybe a bit slow, but that's what the actual plane look like and I am sure ED will faithfully recreate it in the end. People wanting ahistorical variants flying with ahistorical equipment, experimental boost will be disappointed however. http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
Krupi Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) But you are going to get an late 1944 (CC. Ocotber 1944) scenario Project with the historical +18 lbs Spitfire IX, P-51D, P-47D, Me 109K and Fw 190D and Me 262 with their historically relevant equipment and setup. The list is of course by no means complete and we could have small series and rarely used variants, but in my opinion its still a good setup. Perhaps read up a bit what was actually used in 1944. And the Spit IX will be fine. Its a good claimber and turner, if maybe a bit slow, but that's what the actual plane look like and I am sure ED will faithfully recreate it in the end. People wanting ahistorical variants flying with ahistorical equipment, experimental boost will be disappointed however. Err as much as I love the K4 and D9 they are the very rare variants which is really the source of the problem. Two incredible fighters that were both very rare MW50 equipped in 1944 and even 1945 compared to the very common variants given to the allies, that is the real source of the problem. Only time and new aircraft like the G6 and A8 will solve this issue, I.e. Another 2/3 years. Edited April 18, 2016 by Krupi Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit Project IX Cockpit
Reflected Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 With all due respect, why are some of you ignoring docs and facts, stating having a 18 boost Spit is historical as opposed to having a 25 boost Spit? 25 boost was approved in March 1944. Some might be emotionally too attached to the 109, but as we see from the chart even the 25 boost Spit won't come anywhere near it in performance. The latest 109s and 190s fighting - and outnumbering - Mustangs and 1943 Spits is as ahistorical as it gets... Don't you guys wanna set up a Sopwith Pup vs 109 K server? They were around in 1944 - in museums :P ;) Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord
Foul Ole Ron Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 With all due respect, why are some of you ignoring docs and facts, stating having a 18 boost Spit is historical as opposed to having a 25 boost Spit? 25 boost was approved in March 1944. Only the ADGB squadrons used it though until supplies on the continent were sorted out. 2 TAF didn't convert to the higher boost until early '45. The problem really is the choice of the K-4. Was a bad choice for the scenario that was marketed. Should have been a later G model variant. Nobody would be arguing for a +25 lbs Spit IX over Normandy in' 44. But it's a valid argument to have it and a 72" Mustang on the continent in '45 once the K-4 and D-9 became fairly common.
Alicatt Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Haha :lol: I think you are right, well I certainly hope that I am proved wrong I really do! I just don't think I will :noexpression: Man I can't wait to fly her :pilotfly: (Just don't mention the radio wire ;)) If they can get that wrong, something that was out of date 4 years prior, then what else have they got wrong? Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh Clan Cameron
Reflected Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 OK fair enough, but it would still be a more historical matchup than the +18...I bet there were as many +25 boost Spits in ADGB squadrons as K-s over Europe. Would be interesting to see the numbers. I definitely agree that a G-10 or G-14 would have been a smarter choice. Although the K appeared in late 1944 it was mostly a 1945 fighter. That's why I can't get the reasoning of some, saying "the +25 Spit is a purely 1945 plane, and it wouldn't match the 1944 scenario." The +25 boost Spit wouldn't be the biggest elephant in that room... Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord
Kurfürst Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Err as much as I love the K4 and D9 they are the very rare variants which is really the source of the problem. Two incredible fighters that were both very rare MW50 equipped in 1944 and even 1945 compared to the very common variants given to the allies, that is the real source of the problem. Only time and new aircraft like the G6 and A8 will solve this issue, I.e. Another 2/3 years. Neither the K-4 or D-9 were rare, in fact they were very common, this has been discussed multiple times, so please read back on that. Just to recap the rough production numbers from memory, some 1600 K-4s, 1800 D-9s and 2600 G-10s were produced, so yeah, 'rare'... compared to what, the 4000-odd Spitt Mark IX LFs...? MW-50 was also not rare, it was standard fitting in the period (I think you are referring to that the earliest D-9s not having that fitted, but that was also introduced by We have a P-51D with gyro gunsight, which was not introduced until October 1944, and with further control surface modifications that essentially make it an 1945 plane, so its high time people would stop complaining about also having a German bird from September 1944 and one from October 1944. QUOTE]Only time and new aircraft like the G6 and A8 will solve this issue, I.e. Another 2/3 years. The A-8 and G-6 is kinda OKish, IMHO it would make a great counterpart for the P-47D-10 or the Spit IX, atlhough the G-6 was just getting out of service by the time the IX LF was being introduced in meaningful numbers. As far as I go, the more the better, but understand this, there is absolutely no problem with the current selection of planes. They are from the very same historical timeframe. OK fair enough, but it would still be a more historical matchup than the +18...I bet there were as many +25 boost Spits in ADGB squadrons as K-s over Europe. Would be interesting to see the numbers. Uhm, because the +25 lbs Spitfire IXs of 1944 are a bit of a semi-fantasy. Despite the March 1944 'clearance' of +25 lbs, subsequent months of testing showed that there were serious problems in practice (backfires and fouling). The former was solved by about May but there was no operational introduction in the whole 1944: only two Mk Squadrons (=20-30 odd planes) were selected for operational trials and they did not see much, if any air combat, and the trials were closed in the automn of 1944 and they reverted to +18. It was just a testing unit for the feasibility of the boost. Furthermore the supply needs of the USAAF for the high grade fuels were preventive for the RAF to also embark on any widespread operational use, which the Brits had to begrudgingly accept. They couldn't get the first handful Mark IX Squadrons to change over to 150 grade and +25 lbs until February-March 1945, and even then only gradually and with engine troubles because of the fuel's tendency to foul spark plugs and sometimes cause stopping engines at takeoff, with predictable results. We know for sure from Bergers memoirs that the Canadian 126 Wing converted (thats again, 4-5 Spit Squadron, or roughly 60 operational planes). There might have been others, but you get an idea about the scale. Just to put the +25 lbs Spits for 1944 operation into context. Its a fantasy that never was. I definitely agree that a G-10 or G-14 would have been a smarter choice. Although the K appeared in late 1944 it was mostly a 1945 fighter. Uhm, why would the G-10, a plane introduced in late October 1944 in initially lesser numbers than the K-4 introduced in early October 1944 would be a better choice, especially as its very poorly documented? Also the almost masoistic insistence of this forum to have a G-14 for balance reasons in beyond me. If anything, it would be even worse to fight the G-14 under 4000 meters (which is what people do 95% of the time). Just imagine the G-14 as slightly slower, lighter, better turning and better climbing K-4 with a sniper cannon with proper ballistics and long firing time. I honestly can't grasp why anyone flying an Allied plane would want that so desperately. That's why I can't get the reasoning of some, saying "the +25 Spit is a purely 1945 plane, and it wouldn't match the 1944 scenario." The +25 boost Spit wouldn't be the biggest elephant in that room... Well I guess because the +25 lbs Spit IX would be indeed a purely 1945 plane and none of the other are really are. The K-4 is a pure early variant from late 1944, not the 2000 PS beast from 1945. The P-51D is a somewhat odd mix with the 1945ish metal elevator and all, but its basically an October 1944 variant performance and gunsight wise, although imho it could use the 72" boost the 8th AF fighter command was running its planes (15th AF in MTO did not, however, so its not entirely out of place). Again the D-9 has the MW boost it had in 1944; I am not sure about the EZ 42 gunsight, which was introduced in August 1944 but may have not fitted to Doras until end 44/early 45. http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
Reflected Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Thanks for your insightful answer Kurfürst, it makes sense, I can live with that. But again, The 109 K and 190 D are the best opponents the Spit IX +18 could have ever possibly met, and they weren't their "natural enemies" so to speak. So while I see now that a +18 boost Spit would be historically OK, they were more likely to fight earlier German planes. Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted April 18, 2016 ED Team Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) Guys step back and take a break, squabbling like children it is getting you no where. Topic is DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion Off topic posts will be removed. Thread cleaned Edited April 18, 2016 by BIGNEWY Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, PIMAX Crystal
rel4y Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 How is the Spitfire IX a 1943 airplane? It was the main RAF fighter workhorse during the invasion of Normandy, during Operation Bodenplatte and even till the end of the war. There were also a bunch of Tyffies around, but I would much prefer a Spit IX over a Tyffie anyday. Reserve units were still equipped with Mark Vs at that time and there were two Squads of Mark XIVs around which were used for trials and recon. I think the Spit will fare pretty well online. It will outturn anything and climb as good as the 109. I am excited! THough I hope the LF doesnt outperform the HF at high alt, because thats just plain wrong.. ORDER OF BATTLE 6th JUNE 1944 No2 Group 137 Wing 88 Squadron Boston IIIA 342 (French) Squadron Boston IIIA 226 Squadron Mitchell II 138 Wing 107 Squadron Mosquito VI 305 (Polish) Squadron Mosquito VI 613 Squadron Mosquito VI 139 Wing 98 Squadron Mitchell II 180 Squadron Mitchell II 320 (Dutch) Squadron Mitchell II 140 Wing 21 Squadron Mosquito VI 464 (RAAF) Squadron Mosquito VI 487 (RNZAF) Squadron Mosquito VI No 83 Group 39 (RCAF) Reconnaissance Wing 400 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX SP 168 Squadron Mustang I 414 (RCAF) Squadron Mustang I RU 430 (RCAF) Squadron Mustang I G9 15 Sector 122 Wing 19 Squadron Mustang III QV 65 Squadron Mustang III YT 122 Squadron Mustang III MT 125 Wing 132 Squadron Spitfire IX FF 453 (RAAF) Squadron Spitfire IX FU 602 Squadron Spitfire IX LO 129 Wing 184 Squadron Typhoon IB BR 17 Sector 126 Wing 401 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX YO 411 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX DB 412 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX VZ 127 Wing 403 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX KH 416 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX DN 421 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX AU 144 Wing 441 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX 9G 442 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX Y2 443 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX Z1 22 Sector 121 Wing 174 Squadron Typhoon IB XP 175 Squadron Typhoon IB HH 245 Squadron Typhoon IB MR 124 Wing 181 Squadron Typhoon IB EL 182 Squadron Typhoon IB XM 247 Squadron Typhoon IB ZY 143 Wing 438 (RCAF) Squadron Typhoon IB F3 439 (RCAF) Squadron Typhoon IB 5V 440 (RCAF) Squadron Typhoon IB I8 83 Group Reserve with ADGB 64 Squadron Spitfire V SH 234 Squadron Spitfire V AZ 303 (Polish) Squadron Spitfire V RF 345 (French) Squadron Spitfire Vb 2Y 350 (Belgian) Squadron Spitfire Vb MN 402 (Canadian) Squadron Spitfire V AE 501 Squadron Spitfire V SD 611 Squadron Spitfire V FY No 84 Group 35 Reconnaissance Wing 2 Squadron Mustang IA OI 268 Squadron Mustang IA 4 Squadron Spitfire XI TV 18 Sector 131 Wing 302 (Polish) Squadron Spitfire IX WX 308 (Polish) Squadron Spitfire IX ZF 317 (Polish) Squadron Spitfire IX JH 132 Wing 66 Squadron Spitfire IX LZ 331 (Norwegian) Squadron Spitfire IX FN 332 (Norwegian) Squadron Spitfire IX AH 134 Wing 310 (Czech) Squadron Spitfire IX NN 312 (Czech) Squadron Spitfire IX DU 313 (Czech) Squadron Spitfire IX 19 Sector 135 Wing 222 Squadron Spitfire IX ZD 349 (Belgian) Squadron Spitfire IX GE 485 (RNZAF) Squadron Spitfire IX OU 133 Wing 129 Squadron Mustang III DV 306 (Polish) Squadron Mustang III UZ 315 (Polish) Squadron Mustang III PK 145 Wing 329 (French) Squadron Spitfire IX 340 (French) Squadron Spitfire IX GW 341 (French) Squadron Spitfire IX NL 20 Sector 123 Wing 198 Squadron Typhoon IB TP 609 Squadron Typhoon IB PR 146 Wing 193 Squadron Typhoon IB DD 197 Squadron Typhoon IB OV 257 Squadron Typhoon IB FM 266 Squadron Typhoon IB ZH 136 Wing 164 Squadron Typhoon IB FJ 183 Squadron Typhoon IB HF No 84 Group Reserve with ADGB 149 Wing 33 Squadron Spitfire IX 5R 74 Squadron Spitfire IX 4D 233 Wing 80 Squadron Spitfire IX WZ 229 Squadron Spitfire IX 9R 274 Squadron Spitfire IX JJ No 85 Group 141 Wing 91 Squadron Spitfire XIV DL 124 Squadron Spitfire VII ON 322 (Dutch) Squadron Spitfire XIV 3W 142 Wing 264 Squadron Mosquito XIII PS 604 Squadron Mosquito XIII NG 147 Wing 29 Squadron Mosquito XIII RO 148 Wing 409 (RCAF) Squadron Mosquito XIII KP 149 Wing 410 (RCAF) Squadron Mosquito XIII RA 488 (RNZAF) Squadron Mosquito XIII ME 150 Wing 56 Squadron Spitfire IX US 3 Squadron Tempest V JF 486 (RNZAF) Squadron Tempest V SA 34 Reconnaissance Wing 16 Squadron Spitfire XI 140 Squadron Mosquito IX/XVI 69 Squadron Wellington XIII 85 Group Reserve with ADGB 406 Squadron Beaufighter HV 418 (Canadian) Squadron Mosquito III TH Air Spotting Pool 26 Squadron Spitfire V 63 Squadron Spitfire V 808 (FAA) Squadron Spitfire V 897 (FAA) Squadron Seafire III 885 (FAA) Squadron Seafire III 886 (FAA) Squadron Seafire III 1320 Special Duty Flight Typhoon Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916 Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming
Friedrich-4B Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) Uhm, because the +25 lbs Spitfire IXs of 1944 are a bit of a semi-fantasy. Despite the March 1944 'clearance' of +25 lbs, subsequent months of testing showed that there were serious problems in practice (backfires and fouling). The former was solved by about May but there was no operational introduction in the whole 1944: only two Mk Squadrons (=20-30 odd planes) were selected for operational trials and they did not see much, if any air combat, and the trials were closed in the automn of 1944 and they reverted to +18. It was just a testing unit for the feasibility of the boost. This is fudging the real story: In June 1944, there were two Spitfire IX squadrons (1 and 165 Sqns) in ADGB, because 2 TAF took priority. It should be noted that they had converted to the fuel before the V-1s arrived. The claim that "there was no operational introduction in the whole 1944" is disingenuous, because operations were certainly flown, by fully operational (as opposed to trials) squadrons, operating from frontline airfields. And the anti-diver operations were hard yakka on the pilots, and a real test of the aircraft. The rest of the ADGB squadrons equipped with Spitfire XIVs, Tempest Vs and Mustang IIIs were converted to use 100/150 grade fuel when the V-1 threat became real. The reason these units reverted back to 100 Octane and +18 lbs boost was purely logistical: Because the flying bomb menace no longer exists, and because under existing operational commitments, aircraft of A.D.G.B. will have to refuel at landing grounds in Belgium or Holland, it has been decided to revert to the use of 130 Grade Fuel and to adjust engines to their previous maximum boost pressure. To continue to use 150 Grade Fuel in operational Squadrons is undesirable for the following reasons:- (i) The free interchange of Squadrons with T.A.F would be complicated in that aircraft would have to be modified for the lower boost pressure on transfer. (ii) To use 150 Grade Fuel when operating from U.K and to use 130 Grade Fuel when refueling on the Continent, would call for repeated adjustments of the maximum boost pressure obtainable. (iii) The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role, which A.D.G.B. Squadrons will be called to undertake in the near future. (iv) The supply of 150 Grade Fuel is such that stocks can only be laid down a certain airfields. This imposes a degree of inflexibility, which is undesirable. (v) The use of high boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft calls for the fitting of open exhausts as the night flying exhausts will not withstand the temperatures associated with the higher boost pressures. Therefore, to continue to use the higher boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft makes the aircraft unsuitable for normal Night Fighter operation. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/18-sept-44-doc.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html Edited April 18, 2016 by Friedrich-4/B [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
MiloMorai Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Nice list rel4y. So 35 squadrons of Spitfire IXs. Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. 36 In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations. 37 38 Air Defense Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) shared a report, dated 16th June 1944 with A.E.A.F. summarizing the RAF's experience with using 150 Grade Fuel in Merlin 66 engines. All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. 39 By the end of July the backfires were overcome through fairly straightforward adjustments. 40 By 12 August 1944, 16 Squadrons in A.D.G.B. had been modified to to operate with 150 grade fuel. 41 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html So approximately 1/2 of the Spitfire IX squadrons were using 150PN fuel. It would be worth reading the link to dispel the misinformation some have been posting.
Kurfürst Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) So approximately 1/2 of the Spitfire IX squadrons were using 150PN fuel. Source please. It would be worth reading the link to dispel the misinformation some have been posting. Indeed. Reading the link shows that you have been providing misinformation, ie. reading the snippet in ref. no 41 shows that out of the Spitfires listed, only 2 Spitfire IX Squadrons" (but already being replaced by XIVs) and 3 Spitfire XIV Sqdns ("mostly completed") being employed and strictly for anti diver duties. The rest are a handful of Tempest, Mosquito and Mustang III units which we know were also employed as anti V-1 units. So now we know two things. First, that only 2 Spitfire IX units were involved, out of the apprx. 30-35 Squadrons in Britain, only briefly, and only for anti-diver duties and were quickly withdrawn. That's hardly "half of the Squadrons". Second, it would appear that its another enthusiastic attempt of yours to fudge a bit of history with which you of course accuse others. Edited April 18, 2016 by Kurfürst http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
Kurfürst Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Source given. And it shows you are not telling the truth... http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
Friedrich-4B Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 The fact is that we are getting the +18 lbs boost L.F Mk. IX, with the hope that in future +25 lbs will become an option. In the meantime, is it really worthwhile worrying about this well before the FM is even released? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
HiJack Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 And it shows you are not telling the truth... Into Service with the Royal Air Force Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. 36 In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations. 37 38 Air Defense Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) shared a report, dated 16th June 1944 with A.E.A.F. summarizing the RAF's experience with using 150 Grade Fuel in Merlin 66 engines. All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. 39 By the end of July the backfires were overcome through fairly straightforward adjustments. 40 By 12 August 1944, 16 Squadrons in A.D.G.B. had been modified to to operate with 150 grade fuel. 41
Recommended Posts