Another Spitfire about to be released

[Dillon 2,197]

I usually don't buy the same aircraft twice but I now love the Spitfire after the first incarnation in FS2020.  It will be interesting to see how another great developer handles producing this amazing WWII fighter.

FlightSim.Com - MSFS Spitfire From Aeroplane Heaven On Final

[scotchegg 4,158]

The most beautiful Spit. Come to Daddy.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

31 minutes ago, Dillon said:

I usually don't buy the same aircraft twice but I now love the Spitfire after the first incarnation in FS2020.  It will be interesting to see how another great developer handles producing this amazing WWII fighter.

FlightSim.Com - MSFS Spitfire From Aeroplane Heaven On Final

Looks like they are making a non-trop MkVc from circa 1940, these were basically a Battle of Britain MkI airframe with the more powerful Merlin 34 shoehorned in. Be interesting to see if they produce the VC trop and more manoeuvrable VC clipped wing variants.

I believe the one we already have is a more powerful mid war MkIX from 1942/1943 so slightly different birds.

The one I am personally likely to part with money for is the summer of '39 Spitfire MkI complete with fixed wooden prop and engine flooding on negative G 🙂 

What would be really fun to fly is a DB powered E3 or E4 Emil with the manual variable pitch prop (no constant speed unit back then) .  If people think the Corsair is hard to fly - an Emil without a CSU will really give them something to think about.

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[Dillon 2,197]

38 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Looks like they are making a non-trop MkVc from circa 1940, these were basically a Battle of Britain MkI airframe with the more powerful Merlin 34 shoehorned in. Be interesting to see if they produce the VC trop and more manoeuvrable VC clipped wing variants.

I believe the one we already have is a more powerful mid war MkIX from 1942/1943 so slightly different birds.

The one I am personally likely to part with money for is the summer of '39 Spitfire MkI complete with fixed wooden prop and engine flooding on negative G 🙂 

What would be really fun to fly is a DB powered E3 or E4 Emil with the manual variable pitch prop (no constant speed unit back then) .  If people think the Corsair is hard to fly - an Emil without a CSU will really give them something to think about.

I can't wait for someone to produce a detailed P51 on the same level as the Corsair.

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Speaking of Fighters, I would really like to see an Aerobask quality Phenom 300 with Working Title G1000.  Now I would "fight" for that

Tony

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

I'll pass this one and wait for a Messerschmidt or Focke Wulf.

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, Dillon said:

I can't wait for someone to produce a detailed P51 on the same level as the Corsair.

Then you will be pleased to know that Aeroplane Heaven are also making a P51.

With regard to other Spitfire variants being the 'same' aeroplane, this isn't really the case. Although superficially Spitfires tend to look broadly similar at a quick glance, there were quite a lot of changes to the things as it progressed and improved throughout the war, such that it gained about 100 mph in speed over its development lifespan and ended up at well over twice the MTOW of the original Mark I version, even when empty.

Aeroplane Heaven's Spitfire variants on the way are the Mark I and the Mark V. Of these, the Mark V is the one most similar to the Flying Iron Mark IX, since the Mark IX was essentially a 'quick fix' which was cobbled together whilst an improved version of the Spitfire was being developed and tested (among the changes which would be forthcoming on these, was a retractable tailwheel).

Since it was going to take a while for these 'in the pipeline' improved Spitfire variants to go into production and in late 1941 the RAF needed something sooner in order to counter the Focke Wulf 190A which was superior to the Mark V, a Merlin 66 was bolted onto the front of the Mark V airframe to create the Mark IX. In some cases, the Mark IX had a Merlin 61, 63, or 70, the differences in these engines were the rated horsepower but also the supercharger gearings, which were either at ratios suited for low or high altitude best performance depending on the variant, and whether or not these have clipped wings can usually tell you which engine they had, since the clipped wing versions were optimised for lower altitudes.

Just to add to the confusion, the Mark XVI was fairly identical to the Mark IX, but it had a Packard-built Merlin 266 and it was more frequently built with the cut-down rear fuselage deck and the teardrop blister canopy seen on most later versions of the Spitfire. Packard Merlins were usually tougher than the Rolls Royce ones because they used the connecting rods which Allison had developed for their V1710 engine, which were more sturdy than the Rolls Royce ones.

The Mark I was essentially the variant that was part of the initial Air Ministry order for 300 Spitfires, and these were built by Supermarine, although some work was sub-contracted out. They were very well-finished aeroplanes, built to a high standard, but many of their components were hand-built and hand-fitted, so they were problematic when it came to replacing parts if they were battle-damaged, since there would be a lot of fiddling about necessary to get parts to fit, which there always is with aeroplanes such as the Spitfire, but some of it was fairly drastic on the Mark I versions. This was one of several reasons why the British deployed the Hurricane to France in 1939 rather than the Spitfire, since the Hurricane was easier to service, although the wider-track landing gear of the Hurricane was another good reason for that too, as was the fact that there were a lot more Hurricanes available because  they were being produced at a fairly fast rate at a large satellite factory which Hawker had created.

In contrast, the first Mark Is Spitfires each took a long time to make. Initially, Supermarine were only managing to produce Mark I Spitfires at the rate of just one per week, and since a Squadron needed 14 Spitfires to be at full strength, this was a serious issue. As a result of that tectonically slow production rate, the RAF only had six Spitfires by the time of the Munich Crisis in 1938, but this was something of a spur to getting the streamlined design of the Mark II finalised and the factory where it would be built up and running faster than would have otherwise been the case. This was no small task; there were over 30,000 blueprints which had to be modified in order to speed-up the production methods and improve the components used in the Mark II Spitfire.

The Mark II was a production-streamlined improvement over the Mark I which incorporated numerous modifications made to the Mark I as standard features, such as the 'blown' canopy. These were built at the then-new Castle-Bromwich satellite factory. Being mass-produced when the factory was getting used to making them, typically these were not as 'polished' as the Supermarine-built Mark Is, but they were functional and had the advantage of being more standardised in terms of how the wings and such were fitted, so they were easier to repair if battle damaged.

They came fitted with 73 lbs of armour protection as standard, whereas the Mark Is had this added as a modification done at squadron-level. Some Mark IIs were later modified to Mark V standard, but the majority of them and their Mark I predecessors were sent to training units. Some other differences you see on these early versions are things such as whether they have a shotgun starter fitted, and some Mark Is and Mark IIs only had four machine guns fitted, owing to shortages during production.

The Mark V had a either a Merlin 45 or a Merlin 50, but it was more than just a Mark I/II with a different engine, since it had a significantly strengthened airframe in comparison to the earlier variants, as a result of the testing done with the Mark III which identified the necessity for a stronger airframe. The Mark V was the first version to have metal ailerons fitted, which improved its control stick forces at high speeds although metal ailerons were more commonly a standard feature seen on the Mark IX.

Sometimes people wonder why the Mark numbers of the Spitfire are weird and out of sequence in terms of when the various versions went into service, but it's not as mysterious as it seems. Essentially, the improvements planned from the experience gained with operating the Mark I and Mark II versions, led to a number of prototypes which were assigned numbers, and some of these later went into production, but the lengthy testing process meant that some simpler improved versions which had been assigned later type numbers made it to the squadrons and therefore into combat quicker. So to explain what was going on with all that, here goes...

The Mark III, was a prototype used to test the capability for the airframe to handle a more powerful Merlin variant. The Mark IV was also an engine test prototype used to trial the installation of the Griffon engine instead of the Merlin, although the IV designation was also used to identify some dedicated photo-recon versions of the Mark V when they were at the squadrons. So the Mark III and IV versions were never really intended to be anything other than testbeds. which is why the next version we see in combat after the I and II, is the V.

The Mark VI was a pressurised high-altitude interceptor version with a longer wingspan with more pointed tips. The Mark VII was similarly a high-altitude interceptor variant, but it had a retractable tailwheel. The Mark VIII was similar to the above two, but it was unpressurised. These all did go into combat, but the time involved in creating and testing things such as a pressurised cockpit and a retractable tailwheel meant that they went into service after the souped-up Mark V which was designated the Mark IX, and after the Mark XVI too, since that was essentially a Mark IX as well. so that's why the Mark numbers are all over the place and out of sequence up until about 1943.

The other thing which is non-sequential with Spitfires, is the serial numbers. The various productions batches are numerically sequenced, but what the actual numbers start at for each batch were randomised in order to conceal the amount of aeroplanes the RAF had on strength.

So there are plenty of reasons to have more than one Spitfire in your virtual hangar; it is one of the few aeroplanes which managed to remain viable as a front-line fighter all the way through the Second World War.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Chock

[Chock 17,769]

Just now, ThomseN_inc said:

I'll pass this one and wait for a Messerschmidt or Focke Wulf.

Classics Hangar are currently working on porting their FW190D/Ta152 to MSFS.

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Classics Hangar are currently working on porting their FW190D/Ta152 to MSFS.

ouh! Nice to hear! 🙂

[ryanbatc 12,770]

2 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

Speaking of Fighters, I would really like to see an Aerobask quality Phenom 300 with Working Title G1000.  Now I would "fight" for that

Tony

Already got a payware quality Citation from WorkingTitle hehe.  Though I'd like to see one as well.  Early on after MSFS came out there was a suuuper nice E55P (Phenom 300) previewed.  Then one day it mysteriously was pulled with very little information.  I'll throw up a screenshot for fun...  maybe it will be an addon one day.  (Just note I pulled these shots from the main MSFS forums).  Ooops totally hijacked this thread lol.  Radials vs turbines... they're all the same, they both have wings!

E55Pext by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

E55Pint1 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Edited April 22, 2021 by ryanbatcund

[Nyxx 6,993]

It is funny when we have a topic on a spitfire we end up with super moden screenshots of jets ^^🙄🙄 Ryan..../SLAP 💥😜😄

 

The key question is will this be at the same level as the Milviz FG-1D? The link reads well.....really well.

When you follow the link you can click on a screenshot and see lots more.

I do hope its as good as the detail looks. I found the FI disapointing after the FG. Fingeres crossed this is "the" one. But I should have know it was not right after finding Xplane version flap=the aircraft pitching up and sending them an email asking if this will be fixed, no reply! and since the Xplane one was never fixed, it even says 3 times in there manual; that flap pitch the spit down a lot.....nevermind. Live and learn. 

High hopes for this version. If the heating or better put keeping this girl cool will make not blowing the FG seem easy mode lol. If you Blow the FG up please dont go anywhere close to this LOL. A2A did a great Mk1 and boy this girl gets herself hot fast.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Nyxx

[jcomm 5,885]

OTOH they, Aeroplane Heaven, just like many other developers, complain about how they feel kind of clueless on many aspects of MFS development:

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?22419-Aeroplane-Heaven-Describes-Issues-With-MSFS-2020-Development

[Nyxx 6,993]

O man it looks and sounds so good.....SOLD

Turn the sound up and enjoy!....🙂

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Nyxx

[Will Fly For Cheese 1,710]

We need Miss Shilling's orifice.

[overspeed3 410]

So many Spitfires, so little time...