IL-2 Great Battles | The Late War Spits | A too long explanation on how to fly the Spitfire Mk. XIV
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 май 2023
- I made this after seeing some comments on the forums and discords about people struggling with the Mk. XIV. Its a rough explanation of how to get the most out of the griffon 65 engined Spit.
Sources:
www.thisdayinaviation.com--I used some images from them.
(www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag...)
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org--pderformance charts
(Spit Mk. 9 www.spitfireperformance.com/sp...)
(Spit Mk. 14 www.spitfireperformance.com/sp...) 
Игры
The Mk. XIV is one of most beautiful airplanes ever built. Fighter development during the war was closely linked to development of engines and fuels- and not only yours, but what the other guy was doing. For a detailed description of this, I recommend "The Secret Horsepower Race" by Douglas.
Nice video, good info.. For me, my favourite Spit has to be the MkVIII simply because it still retains the classic MkI shape, but has the Merlin 2 stage 2 speed s/c engine & rear tail wheel retract for cleaner lines.. In addition, the big Griffon sounds good, but that 60 series Merlin sounds superb. Just the quintessential Spitfire😎
I recently had the pleasure of sitting in the cockpits of Spitfire MkI N3200 and Hurricane MkIIb BE505.. It was a wonderful opportunity to directly compare the cockpits of both
Merlin 61 (the one with 2 stage 2 speed blower) had been a while in development because RR struggled to solve their big end failures. That alone is a classic groupthink. They spent tons redesigning con rods until someone asked the oil pump. In short, the pump could not keep up with demand and con rods followed.
When it comes to Mk.IX history, there are a couple of moments to point out:
1) another way to distinguish early Mk.IX from a "pure" one is the air intake having no filter and thus being smaller
2) if one accounts Mk.XVI (a Mk.IX with Packard-built Merlin 266 - basically Merlin 66 with different service tools) Mk.IX becomes the most produced Mark (making up 6900 (6700 without remotorized Mk.Vs) compared to 6500 Mk.Vs)
Good stuff! Thanks for the schooling.
Great video. I don't think I can be converted from the mk IX though. It is just such a joy to fly. The XIV is a dog when it isnt on WEP (or at least no better than the IX) and the timer there is limited. In the Spit IX you can cheat the system and run at 2900 rpm and full throttle for at least 10 minutes. If I'm fighting like a German I'd rather take the Tempest. IL-2 happens at low alt where the Tempest it better at everything but climb, and the Tempest has a powerful combat engine setting. That and the four hispanos makes it twice as good at hit and run. There's no energy to lose when it only takes one pass to kill.
I'm sounding contrary. I really enjoyed the video. Subscribed. You picked a tough topic.
Great video!
the spit IX you showed with no wing guns was a civilian one. It has canadian civil call numbers on the tail
Nice video 4daalgorithm
Very good video, I hope you make more of these.
Of course, more inbound soon!
Wow ,,, a spitfire and 109 mix . Thats very interesting. Lets do it .
Rolls-Royce pilot was killed in their Griffon version aircraft when he failed to recover from a dive. Did he burn off too much speed? I don’t know.
Im curious if the tail control surfaces maybe shed their fabric? Ive heard a couple stories about Merlin spits doing that when pushed well to their dive speed limit--Id imagine its only worse with a "stronger" engine. Id love to see any info you have on that accident.
Hi sorry but you might be confusing something at 2:41 as the better indicator is the elevator with extended horn balance on freshly built mk9s. The same change made it's way to some late mk5s as well
Thats good to know. I usually use the canon fairings and the tail as my primary indicators, but the more you know the better.
@@zuluactual4721The great majority of Mk IXs had the smaller tail regardless of whether they were conversions. The only real difference between the early IX conversions and purpose-built ones are the engine cowlings - the conversions have butt joints on the upper, side and lower cowling whereas the later ones have clean single-piece cowlings. The later elevators don't come in till mid 1943, and the pointed tail till the Mk XVI entered production alongside the IX in mid 1944.
@@blockheadgreen_ The Mk XVI was a Mk IX but using the PACKARD 266. the Merlin 66 made in AMERICA !!!
Mk14 all day!
First!
It is Griffon, not Griffin.
I appreciate that my accent is what you chose to nitpick over haha.
It’s not an accent issue. Griffon is a bird of prey. Griffin is a fantasy animal.
RR V-12, four stroke engines were all birds of prey. Kestrel, Peregrine, Merlin, Griffon. The odd one out was Vulture with an X 24 layout. The V-12 two stroke was called Crecy with the aim of following historical battles. The jets used river names.
@@davidelliott5843 Exactly!
@@davidelliott5843 I am aware of the naming conventions and the differences between a griffin and a griffon, but those two words have always come out of my mouth as the same, regardless of the spelling--its very common in the northeast US, O-Ns turning into I-Ns in spoken English. For example, for Boston, we dont say Bos-ton, we say Bost-in. Burlington isnt Bur-ling-ton, its Bur-ling-tin.
1:10 "The Spitfire V found itself to be a lot more maneuverable, but" You can stop right there. If that was true there would have not been a Mark V debacle. This assumption maneuverability was secondary is part of a complete misrepresentation of WWII air combat as a whole. Hit and run attacks were easily defeated by turns, which is why hit and run only really worked well on unaware targets, requiring to fire at point blank range. The Mark IX redressed the situation mostly by hit and run, not turning. Second, this is what Clostermann (RAF mission record holder at 432) said about the Spitfire: "At 300 knots it out turned the 2 German types. However, while turning speed goes down, and at 200 knots the notion the Spitfire can out-turn the FW-190A or the Me-109G is a good joke... Few who tried it came back to complain about the legend." This can be verified from all fronts. To me it implies the physics of these prop types has an airflow compression (a kind of slot effect) between the wings and propeller (due to turn airflow curvature at low speed but high prop load, something mostly un-replicable in wind tunnels), that is unsorted. Russian evaluation: "The Spitfire failed in horizontal combat, but was particularly suited to vertical fighting." That is the real physics of these types. See my channel for more details.
Very intriguing.
Hmm...so in War Thunder game Spitfires are behaving exactly like You described. I hate them in horizontal combat, especially when they losing speed do quickly, its almost impossible to regain this again.
I know its not a real Simulator.
Im planning to get Bodenplatte soon, but anyway it seems that "spirit" of FM Spits is correct in WT.
@@TurloghanThe problem with the Spitfire was not losing speed in turns, but the tightness of the radius. It had to make a slightly wider and faster radius, from which it it had to stall to point up and shoot briefly at smaller German circles, and then it lost speed, like you say. This is not losing speed from turning, but from a kind of stall-pointing with 3 axis control, which still greatly reduces gun effectiveness, though it did allow some "kills". In fact, the Spitfire did not even have a partial flap option to cause more turn drag... The effectiveness of guns within brief such a brief firing windows is another problem of all simulators. Effectiveness should be far lower than depicted.