Matrix Games Forums

More on the F.21 - Price quotes the following performance figures for PP139 which was a single experimental airframe tested at the end of 1943 with a Griffon 61 engine.

390 mph @ 4,000ft
412 mph @ 8,000 ft
434 mph @ 12,000 ft
431 mph @ 20,000 ft
457 mph @ 25,800 ft (max speed at full-throttle height in FS supercharger gear). No climb figures available.

These figures are a little higher than a stock F.21 should be to my mind, possibly because PP139 had a special curved windscreen, no mirror and no IFF aerials. Later test pilots commented that it was 10 mph faster than LA187, the first production example - which itself was in poor external condition after being flogged in extensive tests when the comparison was made. LA197 managed 446 mph @ 21,800 ft, which is a couple of thousand feet lower than it should have peaked with a Griffon 61, but which is probably closer to what could have been expected from an operational F.21. Later testing of an F.22 (a Griffon 61-engined F.21 with a bubble-canopy) got 449 mph @ 25,000 ft, and that's probably a better figure to use for a stock F.21.

Differences between the F.21 and F.XIVC were a redesigned tail and wing, increased internal fuel capacity (120 vs 110 imperial gallons) and and armament of 4 x 20mm cannon. In game terms, I suggest the F.21 should be fractionally faster than the XIV (using the F.22 speed figures), and slightly less manoevrable (heavier, no tear-drop canopy compared to the F.XIVE). Production began in the second half of 1944 at slow rate pending the resolution of aerodynamic problems. 91 and 1 squadrons were the only units to be equipped with it before the end of the war.

OK, a change from the usual broken record on Spits - this time I'm arguing for a late-war update for the Typhoon.  This is another case for a mid-1944 performance improvement along the lines of the P-47/Spitfire model, as it started to get the bubble canopy and four-bladed prop in the summer of '44.  I don't think engine performance was increased, but I think there's a case for improving maneuvrabilty.  On the same subject, the '44 replacement rate really needs to be increased from 1 to at least 2 per day.  Anybody else?

Grumble, Grumble
 
Spit IXE begins 8-44
 
Spit F.IX ends 11-44
 
????
 
I have Tiffies being 3 in 43 and 3 in 44 ?
 
I am a little confused on the TIffie, I get the early IA model had the normal cockpit, but was soon replaced with the sliding Bubble cockpit ?
 
need more details ????
 
 

I have the Tiffie IA as a 12 mg version, about 105 made due to a shortage if cannon feed mechanisms. Also had 2100hp Sabre I engine. These would have been the early fighter role a/c and could be ignored I think. .
2180 hp Sabre IIa engine and usual 4 cannon then fitted to be the Typhoon IB. Successive upgrades to 2200 Sabre IIb, and then 2260 IIc. 3315 total prod until Nov 1945.

BTW I think the IA also had a bubble canopy, but wasn't one piece. Th change over to one piece took place dring IB prod (I have seen IB pictures with framing)

Right
the 1A early had the frame, but what I am going for is, pretty much we got a
1A and a 1B
 
is there a improved model that comes out around 6-44 that we can replace the 1B with ?
 
 

Right the 1A early had the frame, but what I am going for is, pretty much we got a
1A and a 1B


Strictly speaking, the other voices in your head in this thread are right - the 1A was the 12 x .303 MG version which began production in '41, the B (all Typhoons produced from 1942 onwards) got the 4 x 20mm cannon.

is there a improved model that comes out around 6-44 that we can replace the 1B with ?

Not in conventional naming terms. I don't even think the late '44 production Typhoon 1B's got seperated into "series" sub-variants, like the Tempest V srs i, or various Halifax V's. But as Supreme God and Emperor of BTR I don't see why you can't give your own sub-variant designation.

Forgot your new 3-3 Typhoon replacement rate; my bad. How does the P-47 replacement schedule look now you can stop & start production whenever you want?

hmmmm
 
47's
 
D-6, 7 a day ending in 11-43
D-15, 18 a day, beginning 11-43, ending 3-44
D-20, 18 a day, beginning in 3-44, ending 6-44
D-25, 18 a day, beginning in 6-44, ending 12-45
M, 4 a day, beginning in 12-44, ending 12-44 (may want to think on that, that is if we only want to add what was made in real life, maybe go with 1 a day in 45 ????)
Ultrabolt, 1 a day, beginning in 3-45, ending 12-45
 
 
 
 

On the Jug: good stuff. No quibbling from me.

M, 4 a day, beginning in 12-44, ending 12-44 (may want to think on that, that is if we only want to add what was made in real life, maybe go with 1 a day in 45 ????)

I like the 1 per day - enough to maintain 1 group on operations without encouraging the AI to upgrade too many units; assuming it has an upgrade path.

Ultrabolt, 1 a day, beginning in 3-45, ending 12-45

XP-72/P-47J? Fair enough; but how about the '47N at something like 3 per day from 3-45 or something like that as well?

Back on Spits:
The change to the production end dates helps the problem, but it still means a steady 12 per day in the first half of '44 declining to 9 and then 8 in the last two months of the year. Why not switch LF.IXC production at 6 per day directly to 6 LF.IXE in August '44 and keep the numbers static? The phasing out of the F.IX and HF.IX can then be balanced by the increase in F.XIVE production in '45. And is the F.21 included at all for'45?

Finally, how about including the XII, used by 41 and 91 Sqns, and upgrading to the F.XIVC?

I've got to admit that the new production plans look good, no matter how much I enjoy going on about the minor details. Keep it going, dude....

I am still very leary about the XII (or VII too) most of what I read, they had no range at all, had to use a drop tank, just to be able to get to there combat Alt
 
which they did fly on missions across the channel, but in game terms, that would mean hitting the coast and heading home again
 
we really don't have the mission need for those two planes
 
for the Spits in late 44, I was thinking the Tempys and Stangs would be replaceing the lost numbers ?
 
one that is bad for playbalance side of things, is having me doing the thinking, what I need or would need is not what most others will need, besides trying to keep real world production in mind
 
take a look at the numbers again, and think about the Tempest and Mustangs coming in, and let me know if you still think the Spit numbers will be too low
 
Still debateing what to do with the P47 N
 
 

I am still very leary about the XII (or VII too) most of what I read, they had no range at all, had to use a drop tank, just to be able to get to there combat Alt

The VII had an identical internal fuel capacity to the VIII, and the same endurance and range as a consequence; better than a stock Mk IX. The XII did have less endurance, particularly the early ones in the EB-serial range which were converted from Mk V airframes with their 85-imp. gallon internal fuel capacity. But increased cruising speed helped to balance this (stretching range for lower endurance compared to a Mk V), and most of the later production Mk XII's were from the MB-serial range of Mk VIII airframes, and had increased internal fuel capacity as a consequence.

All Spits had short range and needed 30, 45 or 90 gallon drop-tanks to be able to perform escort missions to any depth. The XII and VII are no different in that regard. Nonetheless, they were used on escort operations - examples include the VII to escort heavy bombers for sections of the route on raids to southern France in '44, the XII to escort B-17's coming back from Paris in July '43 (meeting them half-way between Paris and the Seine estuary). The XIV consumed even more fuel than the XII, yet it was used to escort bomber missions from the UK to the German border in September 1944 with 90 gallon drop tanks.

So the range issue is a problem for all Spitfires, and not just the VII and XII, yet they are an important part of the game as they were equally an important part of the air war at the time. If you don't want to add them to the game for other reasons, such as the small numbers involved, that's fair enough. But I honestly don't think range should be an issue; if it was a sufficient rationale to cut the VII and XII, then all Spits should be axed for the same reason.

Of course, at this point you may want to axe them all just to shut me up...

for the Spits in late 44, I was thinking the Tempys and Stangs would be replaceing the lost numbers ?

To some degree, but these were extra production resources; Spitfire production didn't run down simply because better aircraft were starting to finally arrive from different production lines. Tempest production should arrive at the expense of the Hurricane and Typhoon, if anything.

one that is bad for playbalance side of things, is having me doing the thinking, what I need or would need is not what most others will need, besides trying to keep real world production in mind. take a look at the numbers again, and think about the Tempest and Mustangs coming in, and let me know if you still think the Spit numbers will be too low


Fair point. Game play is the most important factor. It may well be that all those numbers simply aren't needed, but then that opens the same question for aircraft like the Jug.

Still debateing what to do with the P47 N

You know it makes sense! Can I start on the P-38 now? (sounds of automatic gunfire from HS)

Double check the Stats

I think the End is too high for a few of these

I must of gotten a bigger Drop tank added to the VII and XII then I thought, that is a lot higher End then I had planned on

HS,

Yup, the endurance is significantly higher than it was historically, assuming that you're using the internal capacity for the endurance figure. It should be (off the top of my head) something like 95 mins for the Spit V, 85 mins for the IX, 110 mins for the VIII, 90 for the XIVC and maybe 80 for the XII (assuming 85 galls internal capacity). This should increase to 130 for the XIVE and 150 for the XVIE with their increased internal tankage.

However, I remember JC increasing the Vb endurance to make it a better fighter, as the stock combat routine penalised the shorter-legged fighters when they broke off combat to return to base. Without that sort of tweaking, they might end up getting slaughtered in gameplay.

Personally, I think the endurance should be reduced, providing it doesn't incur a disproportionate penalty in combat losses. The Spits should all be effective and dangerous fighters within their operational range, but even with external tanks this should be *short* to reflect the historical reality. If the Allied player was restricted to using them within their historical radius, they'd be praying for the longer-ranged escorts to arrive, which is how it should be (in my opinion).

With shorter range comes the related issue of moving to forward bases to refuel to increase that range. I think that might be worth looking at (maybe measuring endurance from the departure point on missions rather than from home bases to reflect temporary positioning flights to the most advanced refueling position). But I think that this definitely needs less of my opinion and some hard results from gameplay. My vote is that you reduce the endurance figures and see how it affects combat, gameplay and balance. Let me know what you think.

okay, one thing to remember is that the End for that shot, is showing the Drop tank added in also
 
I will go and look over what tanks I have added in
 
(my lastest book, I just got, had more info on the different Spit models, so I gave in
 
(end numbers based on fuel, remember the Griffen burned fuel at lot faster then the Merlins did, I have seen between 25-40% faster)
 
Please Check on the other stats, so we can make sure we on the same page for Climb, Alt, speed and cruise
 
(we got to watch climb, most tell beginning climb which is a lot higher the what we want)
 
(I lowered the Speed of the XII down some, as it is going to be a low level monster, and at low level it was not as fast as it would be at higher levels, or like it's brothers)
 
(131 and 124 start game with VII's upgrade to Mustang III's, production of 1 a day, till end of oct)
(41 and 91 start the game with XII's, upgrade to XIV, production of 1 a day, till end of Sept)
(616 is held back so it can be the Meteor Squadron)
 
 

If you can, look for mileage, or radius
 
I can work with these numbers and come close
 
to be honest, some of my End numbers are going to look very high, but it was the only way to get the plane to fly to ranges that it was known they could fly to
 
(the P-51 could not fly to Berlin in out starting game)
 
 

okay, one thing to remember is that the End for that shot, is showing the Drop tank added in also

Bugger. I hadn't thought of that.

(end numbers based on fuel, remember the Griffen burned fuel at lot faster then the Merlins did, I have seen between 25-40% faster)

25% is the figure I recall. I can't find my copy of the Pilot's Notes for the F/FR.XVIII which had consumption figures for the Griffon 65, but I have them for the V.B and VIII.

Please Check on the other stats, so we can make sure we on the same page for Climb, Alt, speed and cruise

That's gonna be tough, given the diverse source material needed [:(] And it gets worse if you're trying to establish objective and comparable figures for different aircraft from different nationalities...

(we got to watch climb, most tell beginning climb which is a lot higher the what we want)

Agreed. I'd argue for an average RoC taken from time from take-off to 20,000ft. The good zoom-climbers (109K, Tempest or P-47) might have a case for a bonus of some kind, otherwise they'll lose out excessively to the sustained-climbers (the Spit, etc). But you should have the call on that without dispute.

(I lowered the Speed of the XII down some, as it is going to be a low level monster, and at low level it was not as fast as it would be at higher levels, or like it's brothers)

Fair enough, depending on how much (!). Even more important to my mind would be having a P-38H, P-40 or Mustang I-equivalent manuevrability penalty at altitudes over 20,000ft. This shouldn't be too bad for the Spit XII, but the LF.VB should really suffer above that kind of altitude.

(131 and 124 start game with VII's upgrade to Mustang III's, production of 1 a day, till end of oct)
(41 and 91 start the game with XII's, upgrade to XIV, production of 1 a day, till end of Sept)
(616 is held back so it can be the Meteor Squadron)

Fine by me. Cheers for that.

[bIf you can, look for mileage, or radius
I can work with these numbers and come close[/b]

I can actually quote some contemporary RAF planning figures for the range on operations of the IX, VIII and XIV. The only problem is that, according to Squadron and Wing ORB's I've read, the RAF routinely seems to have violated them when actually planning operations, or at least let squadron and wing leaders ignore them at their own discretion.

The bottom line has to be the cruising range - but before I start quoting gallons per hour consumed by the Griffon IV and Merlin 61 or 63 and take-off and combat reserves, the external drop-tank size needs to be decided. My understanding is that the RAF was using the 90-gallon tank extensively by this point (they specifically didn't test the XIV with any other drop tank to start with, and it was being used to escort B-17 raids and provide fighter cover over Salerno from Sicily), but the 45 gallon tank was still in use, and even the 30 gallon tank in some cases (incredibly enough including the Spit XII wing, who needed the biggest tanks possible in my opinion). My rule of thumb would be to assume 10 gallons of fuel in the drop tank = 10 minutes of extra endurance for the Mk V, 9 for the VIII/IX and 7 for the XII/XIV. Beyond that, I'd give the endurance figures I've already posted, which I admit are impressionistic, but do reflect some degree of historical reality.

to be honest, some of my End numbers are going to look very high, but it was the only way to get the plane to fly to ranges that it was known they could fly to (the P-51 could not fly to Berlin in out starting game)

Totally justified. If you need to tinker with the stats to make it more realistic or balance gameplay, then you've got an absolute right to do that. I just don't think we should be able to get Spit IX's to escort across the Rhine from East Anglia (maybe VIII's with 90 gallon tanks... but you know what I mean).

Please Check on the other stats, so we can make sure we on the same page for Climb, Alt, speed and cruise
That's gonna be tough, given the diverse source material needed  And it gets worse if you're trying to establish objective and comparable figures for different aircraft from different nationalities...
 
Well now you see where I am haveing trouble, it is not that I disagree, but I got a number of sourse, that all want to say something different, odd, the one saying the VII was a gas hog, and needed a drop tank just to climb to alt, is also saying it should have a range of 660
 
(LOL, the Spit did come armed with 4 20mm, but it was not liked, as if one of the guns jammed, the others being fired would make the plane start to yaw and make it uncontrolable in the attack, but then tells how the following models all went with the 4 gun set up ?)
 
 
(I lowered the Speed of the XII down some, as it is going to be a low level monster, and at low level it was not as fast as it would be at higher levels, or like it's brothers)
Fair enough, depending on how much (!). Even more important to my mind would be having a P-38H, P-40 or Mustang I-equivalent manuevrability penalty at altitudes over 20,000ft. This shouldn't be too bad for the Spit XII, but the LF.VB should really suffer above that kind of altitude.
 
yes, all are rated for low level, about 18-20 they will start to be hurting, the 38, send out a raid at 15000 and the 38's at 19000 and they just with in there normal zone
 
so, the XII is going to be a monster at low, very low level (going to be the best low level fighter !!!!) the VII is one of the better high alt ones
 
some others, A-36, P-39, FW 190
 
which works the other way for the High Alt stuff, 47s, 51s, HF Spits, 109 H, FW 190 D, TA 152, down low they will hurt some, but up high they will shine
 
I been looking at the slipper tanks, and thinking about adding them, but never found any info on how many were made or how common they were, but I could work in a 90 gallon slipper tank if you know they were used in numbers
 
(okay inside workings)
numbers are not great, and if need be I can work with them, they do not really seems balanced
 
100 Litre =15 (should add 15 minutes of End)
300 =25 (number is lower then it looks like it should be, but a reason for it)
44 gallon=20
50 gallon=24
75 gallon=35
110 gallon=50
150 gallon=70
200 gallon=90 (really shouldn't be used)
300 gallon=140
 
so in the long run, what we should be looking at, does the game see a gallon of fuel as a minute in the air
 
hassle being, Merlins can stay in the air for a long time on little gas, the PW needed lots and lots of gas to stay in the air for a little time
 
(some of the combat tricks, a long slow climb, saves gas, in the climb, but burns gas faster because your at low alt, a fast sharp climb, burns more gas to get to alt, but you burn less gas once you reach alt and head on your way)
 
Griffins lost Fuel space, as the tank in front of the cockpit had to be removed, but smaller tanks were added to the leading edge of the wings, but a Griffen gave you a better forward gun view (the engine hung lower)
 
sorry, long night, starting to ramble
 
 

ORIGINAL: fochinell
My rule of thumb would be to assume 10 gallons of fuel in the drop tank = 10 minutes of extra endurance for the Mk V, 9 for the VIII/IX and 7 for the XII/XIV.

We are stuck with the 1 point of Endurance per minute, so the DT's are adding endurance at the rate of 1 minute per 2 Gallons (give or take)

I've also used the 1 for 1 rule of thumb, but applied it generally. With your estimates the XII and XIV would have a fuel-flow of 1.4 gallons per minute.

Looking at it a different way, how fast can a Spit VIII fly on a fuel-flow of one gallon per minute? Set that as the Cruise Speed, the end as the actual tankage and then everyone lines up... It's not perfect, but it's reasonable. The main reason it hasn't been done like this is lack of accurate data on performance...

It's fine to have the range, and the estimated cruise, but that means calculating the end from extrapolated data...

There's also the time factor - HS has so much to do on his end, then get it tested. Sometimes it's just easier to make things feel right.

And then there's the guzzlers - anything that needed more than 1 Gal per minute just to get to the fight, let alone in it... They'd be hard to handle under my model, or very, very slow at cruise...

Harley, is there anything written in stone about and the size of the tanks ?
 
pretty much it sort of looks like a 2 for 1 deal, just because the device says it is a 110 gallong tank, don't mean we got to keep it at 50 ? (unless the code does something with it)
 
 

[ me: ... trying to establish objective and comparable figures for different aircraft from different nationalities...]

Well now you see where I am haveing trouble, it is not that I disagree, but I got a number of sourse, that all want to say something different, odd, the one saying the VII was a gas hog, and needed a drop tank just to climb to alt, is also saying it should have a range of 660

I see the problem, and to be fair it is a killer. Even in the depths of my insanity, I know you and your code slaves have more important things to deal with. Nonetheless, I think people (and not just me) should be conducting some sort of informed debate about the stats, and you should be free to pick and chose the figures which are a) historically correct, b) come from a relevant context, and c) most importantly, work with the gameplay best.

On the other hand, take it from me that the VII definitely was not a gas guzzler; it was identical to the VIII (except for a pressurised cockpit and extended wing-tips which were usually removed, just as they were for the VIII), and almost identical to the IX. Using the same engine and an identical airframe means that their engine performance and related speed were identical. The Griffon Spits definitely used more fuel, but as test reports commented at the time, the increase in speed associated with the higher power output and fuel consumption increased the range to balance the loss of endurance.

LOL, the Spit did come armed with 4 20mm, but it was not liked, as if one of the guns jammed, the others being fired would make the plane start to yaw and make it uncontrolable in the attack, but then tells how the following models all went with the 4 gun set up ?)

The Spit yawed when one cannon failed even with a dual cannon armament. The official rationale for not using four cannons in the VC seems to have been gun heating, although Malta command didn't like the increased weight reducing climb rate. They also couldn't afford to use too many Hispanos given the shortage of spares. 2 SAAF sqn did actually use the four-cannon armament in the MTO, as did one or two other units. But it was a capability that really wasn't being used operationally on the type until the F.21 turned up.

[snip altitood modifiers - good stuff)

I been looking at the slipper tanks, and thinking about adding them, but never found any info on how many were made or how common they were, but I could work in a 90 gallon slipper tank if you know they were used in numbers

They certainly were. The 30-gall tank was *extremely* common on offensive operations from 1942-45, and the 90 gall tank was regularly being used, both for (relatively) deep escort oprations from the UK and in the MTO and Far East.

so in the long run, what we should be looking at, does the game see a gallon of fuel as a minute in the air

Killer point. This was indeed the rule of thumb for the Spit V, although in fact they averaged slightly better than that operationally.

hassle being, Merlins can stay in the air for a long time on little gas, the PW needed lots and lots of gas to stay in the air for a little time

That's the key issue in a nutshell. I'm afraid this is down to you and the code slaves to make the call.

Griffins lost Fuel space, as the tank in front of the cockpit had to be removed, but smaller tanks were added to the leading edge of the wings, but a Griffen gave you a better forward gun view (the engine hung lower)

The Griffon Spits used the Mk VIII airframe, which had both enlarged forward fuselage tanks (96 instead of 85 gallons) between the pilot and the two forward wing tanks (25 gallons or so, together). The extra size of the Griffon seems to have pushed the XII and XIV back to the 85 gallon tanks between the cockpit and engine, while retaining the wing tanks. Hence the VII and VIII had an internal capacity of just over 120 gallons, while the XII and XIV had about 110 gallons. This changes with the rear-fuselage tanks arriving in late '44 which added 75 gallons (66 for the bubbble canopy version) internal capacity to the late production IX, XIV and the XVI.

sorry, long night, starting to ramble

No worries. The endurance/performance issue is complex, and I think you're justified if you do chose to simplify it. Just shoving some ideas around at this end. More beer needed....