Pls make spit V better turner the XI

Data:
http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/spitfire.htm

Spit V
Max.Weight: 3078kg
Engine :1185 hp R.R. Merlin 45
Wing Area: 22.48m^2
Power to weight:0,38 hp/kg
Wing loading:136,9kg/m^2

Spit XI
Max.Weight: 4309 kg
Engine:1565 hp R.R. Merlin 61
Wing Area: 22.48m^2
Power to weight:0,36 hp/kg
Wing loading:197,7kg/m^2

With this data there is no doubt for me that spit V should turn better then IX.

 

pls squirl, enlighten us with some physics about its turning abilities No, seriously, don't do, pls

 

What can I say? Please, make Ted better Turner than Tina.

 

Or give it the exec style option- They can make spit v better turner than xiv by worsining turn rate of xiv so the spit v's current RoT is then better.

I bet reds arnt jumping for that option- "what!? you mean we cant have i15 style spits!?"

 

According to Supermarine test pilot Jefrey Quill, the f.14 was the most manuverable of the Spitfires

 

Manuverability is an wide term which consist of rollrate, turning ability at low and high speeds, vertical and horizontal. My post is just about horizontal turning.

 

sure- soon as a6m is fixed

 

-Kopi- is quite right, history as well as engineering concepts favor the Spitfire V over the Spitfire IX in regard to turning ability.

I have noticed this curious modeling before:

I stated this based off of reading The Great Planes by James Gilbert. The book has a picture of a Spitfire Mk. V, and the caption reads:

"Middle left: Mk V, for many pilots the best-handling Spit of all."

It is unclear what is intended by the term "handling," but one thing is certain: aeronautical engineering concepts lean towards the Spitfire V as being the better turner.

I do think that -kopi-'s wing loading for the Spitfire IX is too high, though.

With my research I got the following numbers:
Spitfire Vb wing loading: 133.6 kg/m^2 (27.4 lbs./sq. ft.)
-Kopi-'s number (Spitfire Vc): 136.9 kg/m^2

Spitfire IXe wing loading: 147.3 kg/m^2 (30. lbs./sq. ft.)
-Kopi-'s number (Spitfire IXc): 197.7 kg/m^2

With -kopi-'s Spit9 calculations, it is assumed that the Spitfire IX weighs 4309 kg (9500 lbs).

With my Spit9 calculations, it is assumed that the Spitfire IX weighs 3311 kg (7300 lbs).

It is my opinion that -kopi- is using the overload weight of the Spitfire IX; I use the loaded weight in the cases of both the Spitfire V and Spitfire IX.

No matter which set of numbers you look at, however, the Spitfire V should be the better turner. This conclusion is very easy because both planes have the same wing; and because increased weight decreases turning ability, the heavier plane is the inferior turner - in this case the Spitfire IX.

So, what should be done to the flight modeling?
My tested 360 sustained turn time for Spitfire Vb: 19.25 seconds
Warbirds II Flight Data Spitfire Vb: 19.00 seconds
Warbirds III Flight Data Spitfire Vb: 18.72 seconds

My tested 360 sustained turn time for LF Spitfire IX: 16.07 seconds
Warbirds II Flight Data Spitfire IXe: 20.10 seconds
Warbirds III Flight Data Spitfire IXe: 20.92 seconds

It appears that only the Spitfire IX deviates from the norm of flight simulators. My suggestion is to leave the Spitfire Vb's turn as it is, but increase the sustained 360-turn time for the Spitfire IX (both models on FH).

 

Left turns or right turns? I could see P-factor aiding the 9 more than the 5 in left turns

 

@ squirl: Forgive my lack of knowledge, but wouldnt the power of the engines have an effect? I mean, if you had a Spit 5 with a 500hp engine (just for example) and a Spit 9 with a 1200hp engine, then the bigger thrust provided to the Spit 9 would, I would have thought, compensated somewhat for what the Spit 9 lacks in terms of wingloading?

A simple answer 'yes' or 'no' with a quick, non-detailed explanation as to why not (if that is the case) would be great thanks

 

I think differently.

Spit IX has superior power/weight to Spit V which would make it possible to turn around faster than Spit V. You can see this easily in 109s where with increace of power models with higher winloading ie. 109F-4, 109G-2 had better sustained turn rate than early lighter ones 109E-4.

You need also power to make use of low wingloading. To put it simple. Without power it's useless as your plane cant stay in sustained turn. I dont really know how was the case with Spit V and Spit IX, but it's not as simple as just looking at the wing loading.

 

Yeah, thats kinda what I was trying to say.

Thanks illo

 

Think of it this way:

The force that a plane requires to maintain airspeed in a turn can be expressed in Newtons.

Is the ratio between the Newton output of a propeller and the weight of the airplane important?

I do not think it is.

Two people can be playing tug-of-war and be exerting unequal forces on the rope. The winner's extra force is just that - extra force. You can compare the amount of force he exerted to his body weight, the weight of the rope or anything else, but the bottom line is that only the force itself mattered.

The tug-of-war concept applies to airplanes. In a turn the thrust from the engine is fighting against the drag produced by the plane (chiefly from the wing). The thrust provided by the engine can be compared to the weight of the plane; but in regard to working against drag, only the actual thrust is important.

In other words, it does not matter how the power of the plane compares to the plane's weight; only the quantity of power matters.

Planes with excellent power loading, however, tend to accelerate and climb better than planes with inferior power loading. Because climbing and acceleration both have to do with unbalanced forces (more power against gravity or drag), the planes with the larger margin between power and resistance will climb and accelerate faster.

 

if things were such simple: engine works against drag.
with this point of view, all airplanes must become rocket-shape.

imho the idea is not to counter drag, but to gain lift force from forward motion, paying with drag.

many folks know what is Cy/Cx.
so having Cy/Cx=const i can push my plane through air faster (that leads to higher drag, X) by more powerful engine. having higher speed reached, i will extract higher lift force (Y).

conclusion A: with the same airframe more lift can be produced if more powerfull engine is used.

playing with angle-of-attack, alpha, i can vary Cx(alpha) and Cy(alpha). in our range of alpha Cx increases with increase of alpha, Cy does the same. but the trick is that Cy grows faster than Cx. so i can establish greater alpha to gain more Cyalpha and therefore Y, and i know that more powerful engine will compensate grow of Cxalpha and X.

conclusion B: with the same airframe more lift can be produced if more powerfull engine is used.

conclusion A+B: with the same airframe more lift can be produced if more powerfull engine is used.

imho, of course.

 

but in sustained turn with same speed lighter airframe shoud turn tighter, doesn't it?

 

Heavier Pitts S2 will out turn C-150 at any speed

 

Don't forget drag too. If that lighter airframe produces bigger drag, it won't turn tighter.

 

how much bigger drag have spit5 than 9?

>>Heavier Pitts S2 will out turn C-150 at any speed
we're talking about almost same Spitfires, the only bigger difference beetwen 5 and 9 are engine and weight. In latest FH spit5 seems to be little screwed, 109F2 outturns it with no problems, i've tested it at TA. I'm not an expert, but i guess it shouldn't be like this. Dunno how's with Spit9 turning abilities, but spit5 is turning bad :/ (i'll also test Spit9 someday, cause yesterday it outturned my zeke , but until i'll check it i won't whine on it).

 

doesn't
confer F-104 vs F-111.

radius of Il-2 is about 1.5 times shorter than Bf 109's.
though time of Il-2 is twice longer.

this is hyperbolic example to demonstrate that tendency is not that simple.

could mistake, but isn't friedrich heavier than emil?

 

I wrote the drag-thing for the Pitts vs. Cessna "race".

I think Spit V should turn tighter yet slower than Spit IX. Something like scooter vs. chopper, just to exaggerate it.