I dont actually think so, The F Mk IX is about right, I think its a problem with the performance increase due to 150 octane fuel on the merlin engine.
The griffons that take 150 octane fuel have a (relatively) smaller gain from the increased boost pressure.
For example, the Spitfire F Mk 24 is essentially (although not totally) just a Spitfire F Mk 22 with 150 octane fuel. I think you can agree that while the Mk 24 and Mk 22 differ in performance quite a bit, the gap is nowhere near as big as it is between the F Mk IX and the LF Mk IX.
And yes, I know that even w/o the 150 octane fuel, the Merlin 66 is more powerful than the Merlin 61.
To be fair the Griffon spits massively underperform in engine performance, the Mk24 is on something like 12-18lb of boost when it should really be 25 atleast.
Tbh i’d rather the griffon spits get proper boost instead of being artificially nerfed so we can get them proper performance even if it means something like the later Mk22 & 24 or the Later Seafire go up to 6.7,7.0 or even 7.3.
Would be very very capable, and I’d want to see how it stacks up against the Yak-3U which IMO should be 6.0-6.3.
I think when I made a bug report on the MK.XIV it would be up to 405mph below 1000 metres which is very very good. Still issues would arise from the radiators only being able to handle up to 5 minutes of WEP at a time and also causing the insane drag.
I must admit, I haven’t read the LF MK.IX stuff to check if it really is overperforming but if the LF MK.IX was to get a nerf, a rebuff for the Griffons would be appreciated.
There’s a reason the MK.XIVe is considered the best dogfighter across any nation during the war.
I think Griffons with properly-modeled +25lbs boost would make a great superprop to fit the ~6.3 bracket alongside planes like P-51H and Yak-3U.
And what comes to the LF nerf, currently the only difference is in climb as far as I understand, and that is somewhere between the in-game 31 m/s and trial 29 m/s, so not a tremendous one.
Merlin 66 if I remember correctly is the low altitude version of the merlin 63 found in late spitfires mkIX… if there’s any data for the 63 with 150 octane could be used for the 66
I’ll be the petty one and say that there was a bit more to the differences between Merlin 66 and 63, but whatever
Here is the basic-level comparison of Mk.IXs with Merlin 63, 66 and 70. F Mk.IX – – – – LF Mk.IX
Merlin 63 was not, though, cleared for use of 150 octane fuel, simply because F Mk.IX was mostly phased out by LF in 1944 when 150 octane became a thing.
Oh ok, then we need to find another way to know the Merlin 66 performance.
What were those differences? I always knew the 66 was basically a 63 with the supercharger tuned for the lower altitudes, but I am not an expert on the spitfire
There’re more than enough charts on the website most people here are referencing (spitfireperformance), and I personally have linked multiple such examples.
The differences were primarily centered around the fuel injection, since Merlin 66 incorporated a pressure carburettor instead of a float-type used in Merlin 61 and 63.
Here’s a good sum-up
The Merlin 63 was cleared for 150 octane, but only at +21 boost
Source:
Click the link and scroll to find a reply from a guy called Mike Williams who provides a graphic describing which Merlin/Griffons were cleared for higher boost pressures.
Interestingly, using his chart we could introduce higher boost pressures to some existing aircraft in game…
Several of the later British engines have been nerfed with lower boost pressures and lack 150 octane presumably for balance reasons. Though having 3 5.7 spitfires makes no sense to me when one could easily be made 6.0-6.3 worthy with the addition of higher boost and 150 octane and it seems the MK.24 has an underperforming engine (as well as the Sea Fury missing a metric buttload of power).
The 109’s leading edge slats aren’t enough to make up for the rather large difference in wing loading compared to the Spitfire. Older flight reports also indicate that the Spitfire would turn inside of the 109 at most speeds with very few stating that the 109 could out turn the Spit at lower speeds due to slats, that said this is mainly anecdotal as far as I’m aware and usually comments made by German pilot accounts that had never actually flown a Spitfire (and just as many Spit pilots claimed the 109 couldn’t out turn the Spit at any speed without obviously flying the German machine)
With the older tests you can doubt them somewhat as they were done no doubt with damaged aircraft or aircraft they didn’t fully understand such as the RAE test that stated the 109 was “embarrassed by its slats”. Although the earlier 109’s did have difficulties with its slats which isn’t modelled in WT.
That said modern flight reports absolutely can be trusted where I’ve yet to see a single report by a pilot that has flown both aircraft that stated the 109 could get close to the Spitfire’s turn performance. Off memory Ray or Mark Hanna stated themselves after flying both that the 109 was a brilliant machine but it couldn’t match the Spitfire’s turn.
Speaking from a Sim perspective it’s actually the 109’s that are overperforming in game along with the 190’s. The 109’s elevator is far too positive at speed with zero negative effects on pull out even at 650kph indicated (flight reports dictate it should already be stiffening at 300mph) not to mention zero negative slat behaviour modelled in the early models. The 190A’s are also far too stable with the CoG too far forwards making it far too difficult to stall considering its real life reputation.
In comparison the Spitfire has its sensitive elevator modelled and the torque makes flying uncoordinated impossible. The 109 can be flown straight just with stick which is completely wrong and goes against flight reports old and new.
The difference isn’t very big, and the 109 has several advantages otherwise.
IMO this is due to the 109’s limited combat time over britain. If your plan was staying fast, you’d get in and out in the very limited time for combat that was afforded to you. Maneuvering fights usually took much longer, and even if a 109 pilot succeeded at outmaneuvering and shooting down an enemy spitfire, he’d then have to fly all the way back on whatever fuel he had left. Safe to say, that wasn’t the best situation to be in. The slats also caused the wing root to stall first, which caused the cockpit to shake significantly due to turbulence, so not many pilots actually took advantage of them.
The pilots in North Africa, as far as I’ve read, quickly outgrew the spitfire’s reputation since it was nowhere as fearsome as tales from the BoB claimed.
As is the case with most such issues. Snap rolls in the P-51s don’t have a chance of ripping off the horizontal stabilizers, guns don’t jam at high Gs, and the XP-55 doesn’t even try to kill you.
How modern, and on what aircraft? The later 109s gained a lot of weight, and are incomparable to an E or F model.
Also applies for many other aircraft, including the spitfire. And any RB pilots can’t take full advantage of their turn capability since the instructor does not turn hard enough to deploy the slats.
You mention this, but don’t mention that this change also makes them entirely unable to achieve the maneuverability they could IRL. in-game, right now, they’re bricks on rails with poor energy retention.
EDIT: another thing I remembered shortly after writing this: ALL 190s were very affected by the Klimb Afterburner nerf, which made their oil temperature uncontrollable and ahistorically hot (oil cooler was NEVER changed for the 190As or Ds respectively, only modifications to reduce cylinder head temperature in the radial-equipped models such as slots and later flaps on the side of the fuselage, right after the exhaust).
In the 190 Ds you can’t even sustain 100% throttle, as the oil only cools down at ~95% and under. The oil coolers are unadjustable in all models, so you can’t even counter it with MEC as you can with many other aircraft.
I’ve just test flown the LF Mk9 premium and found no difficulty in flying it. Sure it’s sensitive, but it’s nothing out of this world, especially when you have a slider for pitch sensitivity. A 109 K4 takes significantly more effort in taking off, as propeller torque is more significant there (despite having a significantly wider undercarriage…). It also requires more aileron trim.
For the Bf 109 B-1 the wing loading was 135,8 kg/m2. Then the competition kicks in.
For Bf 109 E-3 it was 154,6 kg/m2. – Spitfire Mk.I had the wing loading of 117 kg/m2.
For Bf 109 F-4 – 176,2 kg/m2. – Mk.Vb had the wing loading of 133,5 kg/m2.
For Bf 109 G-6 – 195,1 kg/m2. – LF Mk.IX had 149 kg/m2 and Mk.XIV had 171 kg/m2.
And that’s just the wing loading, without taking into account the different pitch settings that @dannaryan mentioned slightly in his description of Spitfire’s twitchiness. That was caused by a specific correlation of how much moving the controls affected the angle of elevators, making them more responsive, but with modern-day simulator controls being much shorter it became a singificant hindrance.
A NACA graph from Spitfire Mk.Va trials
I wish it did, people aren’t afraid of the duck at all lol
That wingloading still has to fight against the very thin spitfire wing that won’t provide much lift on its own, and is gonna need AoA far more than the 109 does, thus bleeding more speed.
Of course, thinner is better for top speed but the 109s (and 190 Ds) aren’t reaching their statcard top speeds in-game.
Have you tried it out in sim? Even there it’s not particularly feisty or unstable. Handles great, unlike the J7W.
I don’t know what you were made to believe, but thicker airfoils hardly matter in terms of turning performance, their primary advantages being stall behaviour (in which neither fighter had problems) and capacity for internal modules (in which both were, again, similar, with the Spitfire being on top of you count in the armament).
Again, you can talk theory all you want in attempts to highlight some aspects, but it’s practically useless when we already have the real-life performance.
