Source please. Intresting stuff
And what kind of source did you provide? I’ll give you one. Check Spitfire’s engine power, weight and dimensions and look at its topspeed at sea level and 1000m alt. Now compare that to 109 and 190.
Spitfire had mediocre to bad radiator design hence only Mk XXII has “decent” low alt speed, which is still inferior to Fw 190 D9 or Bf 109 K4.
I am not knocking your information i am genuinely intrested andi would like to compare sources. Not what gaijin says
I never even mentioned anything at all about speed. You idea about the oil maybe c orrect and maybe a contributing factor into why early bfq09’s over heat.
Some stuff here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
Anyway, top speed being higher on 109 and 190 compared to spitfire is more a product of wing drag than radiator drag…
Because you see, the drag on radiators for the K4 is higher than the 14e
Spit 14e (LF has the same, btw)
“RadiatorCd”: 0.007, “OilRadiatorCd”: 0.0005,
“RadiatorCd”: 0.008, “OilRadiatorCd”: 0.002,
Top speeds and engine power:
Spit 14e@SL, 567 kph, 1852 hp
K4@SL, 603 kph, 1887 hp
Both closed rads…
Where do these numbers come from?
But it’s interesting, since LF Mk IX radiators seem to be damn blocky, compared to slim Bf 109 rads. I guess looks are deceiving in this case…
…assuming these numbers are correct.
But it seems while Bf 109 F series had a fairly advanced radiator design, in G series it got simplified and then no longer upgraded. Me-309 had some interesting upgrades, but of course got scrapped because of DB603 shortage and Me-262 hopes, so I guess good for the world, but bad for warthunder :P
I remember how that thing used to be back in 2013…no matter who your enemy was, you could always outclimb him. You always starged any fight with an altitude advantage of at least 1000m.
I didn’t know that it is still that popular though.
It’s very good but it’s easy to fall into the turnfighting trap that leaves you wide open for getting 3rd partied. When I know I’ll die to LF Mk IX I always try to get him low and relatively slow so at least my sacrifice is not in vain.
But the worst thing about Mk IX is overheating. It’s a hot boiii.
This is imho not correct.
Alone the fact that every major invention for aircraft technology (swept wings, jet fighters, axial jet engines, variable wings, etc.) was rooted in Germany is in contrast to this claim. I do agree that GB (Whittle and Sir Wallis) had some success too. To be fair: The technological advantage was mainly based on more or less unlimited funding of science by the Nazis - i read some years ago that the V2 program was similar expensive to the Manhattan project.
I do agree that stuff like 2 stage superchargers / intercoolers on allied side were not bad, but the fact that a 87 octane fuel Ta 152 (with MW 50 & GM-1) was able to outperform 150 octane fuel US fighters should prove my point.
As described by @Loofah: the main impact which decided the “technological” air war was the lack of high power output engines in combination with the technical impossibility to increase the octane number to be “usable” in German engines - besides a few exceptions.
And, ofc, the decreasing training level of German pilots. If you translate various memoirs / biographies, you find out that training was restricted from 1941 onwards due to fuel shortages.
You find even claims that the German Army was asked to “de-motorize” infantry divisions early 1942 as there was not enough fuel to use the effectively - their last chance was to capture the Caucasus in 1942 - and they failed.
All of these post-war so called “superprops” gain their performance advantage mainly due to “usable” 130/150 octane fuel - you can call that tech advantage, but not for the aircrafts itself. The main exception might be very late Spitfires with their very high critical (and tactical) mach numbers.
Very good post mate.
You might want to check this vid by Greg - at the very end he is claiming that G-10s and K-4s were pushed to use the potential of 125 to 130 C3 fuel, accepting the negative impact on engine lifetime.
Although i like his stuff in general - he made it look like the US alone saved the world with the high octane fuel - without mentioning the guy considered to be the father (and inventor) of this octane enrichment process (“cracking”) - a French guy named Eugene Houdry; migrated to the US due to a lack of funding in Europe. You find sometimes his name mentioned like here regarding the power boost for Spits upfront the BoB.
Watch Gregs vid to get more details about engines, knock, fuel, etc…
Has gaijin changed this spit because its not flying like it used to
I played the LF IX recently and it’s an absolute monster. Hispano damage literally kills bf 109s from over 1km when using stealth. It’s filthy.
I’ve been keeping up to date with recent datamines and I have seen zero changes to any spitfires in the last month.
Just out of curiosity what convergence are you using?
woefully undertiered P51H? It’s definitely strong but it started at 6.7 and only ever went down to 6.3. The Russian super props, TA152H and later British props will definitely give it a tough time.
Its 6.3, the only plane that holds a candle is at 7.0 and it’s worse objectively, so yes I think the P-51H is woefully undertiered in comparison.
“worse objectively” has better guns, better flat turn, better MER, better low speed performance. that’s not objectively better, that’s better in some respects
The spitfire has a better turn rate and stall control. Guns sure you can have that too when hispano’s actually work consistently.
MER nah the P-51 has that at least it did on release according to Gaijin’s datasheets, it climbs better, its faster, it retains energy better, it has a better Power/Weight, with combat flaps it can outturn or very nearly outturn a spitfire mk.24 above 500km/h.
So yes, the Spitfire MK.24 is objectively worse than the P-51H unless its a low-speed knife-fight, which given they’re superprops and the P-51H can entirely dictate the fight, it shouldn’t be. At the very least they are equal, and yet nearly a full BR apart. Sounds pretty woefully undertiered to me.
And it gets all that a 6.3 when the MK.24 is 7.0
If we are seriously arguing about whether the P-51H is undertiered at 6.3/should be the same br as the Spitfire MK.24/is better than the MK.24, then this isn’t worth my time, because 95% of people will tell you what I have.
Everyone that i know have said spits are over ranked, i read its because they can turn
It is because people turn with them but I think there are quite a few at appropriate br’s.
The Mk.22 and Mk.24 are not among those spits though, like the P-51H has almost every advantage over a MK.24 and yet the mk.24 is 0.7 br higher because P-51H’s turn with it.
This is what gets me, grifons are not turn fighters