For one, the engine output numbers are all over the place. I mean, 109 going from 800hp to 2200hp by adding gunpods? A P-40E pushing almost 1800hp, while the P-51 (assuming an Allison model) doesn’t break 1400?
A P-40 beating a 109 G2 on turn time looks optimistic, and top speeds for both the 109 and 190 look way lower than what they should be.
Yes, but with their crappy engines the Zeros don’t spend much time at those speeds.
Also sorry for noticing it late, but I have yet to see even a single Soviet report calling the Spitfire “not maneuverable”. Their most common nitpicks to the aircraft were:
Poor taxiing performance at unprepared frontline airfields (and this moment was questioned by some more experienced pilots who said the plane “was shaking less than it seemed to”)
Not high enough maximum speed at lower altitudes. Some sources claim that La-7 was almost 100 kph faster than Mk.IX at ground level, although I’m feeling sceptic about the discrepancy being this high due to Lavochkin’s infamous overperformance at trials.
As an example, not even late-war and post-war productions of La-7 achieved the 630 kph at ground level shown by the test aircraft.
And still, the Soviets considered the Spitfire to be the best high-altitude interceptor they had, having it sent to the Air Defense squadrons. That was both for its ceiling and climb rate, as well as the cockpit having better instruments for flying at worse conditions.
Also, while I remember it, the Spitfire outclimbed all Soviet types to 5000m. The time to reach 5km with WEP was 4 minutes square for Spitfire, and the best La-7 got with WEP from the table above is 4,3 min.
Ah, I guess the numbers just lined up for power output on a few aircraft. But the top speeds are still way off.
Of course I am uncertain about trials done with damaged airframes. But IIRC stall speeds can also be compared, and that would rule out battle damage entirely.
To be honest I’m getting a bit tired of debating theoretical airspeeds when we have plenty of information from the trials, most of which were conducted by Messerschmitt AG. The website in general is a treasure trove of performance sheets, highly recommend it. Just don’t forget to also look at the altitude and settings at which the speeds were measured. From a quick glance I found Rechlin trials of Bf 109 G-1 with 622 kph TAS at 5000m, which is pretty close to the 610 kph achieved by the Soviet-captured Bf 109 G-2. But there are also trials where different modifications didn’t even cap the 600 kph mark at 5km.
Another point for your confusion could be the engine settings, since Gustavs had their engines capped at 1.3 Ata for quite a while, approximately until the 2nd half of 1943 to early 1944. That was caused by constant engine malfunctions at 1.42 Ata until it was finally fixed.
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.
