PDA

View Full Version : PC-9M vs. Spitfire



parkman
23rd April 2004, 09:26
Hi Jaboo
What do you mean theres nothing else to move onto!!? an its not only a trainer its a highly capable aircraft an will do a lot more than train future pilots. Train for what? go look it up. at least try to post a convincing argument if your gonna start slating something you have no knowledge of!
Betcha the spitfires we had a hundred years ago would outfly,outrun and outgun it
:D

Jaboo
23rd April 2004, 23:46
Originally posted by parkman
Hi Jaboo
Betcha the spitfires we had a hundred years ago would outfly,outrun and outgun it
:D

you mean this and the seafires:confused:

Jaboo
23rd April 2004, 23:59
would outfly outrun and outgun these:confused:
i hope your being sarcastic

Fouga2
24th April 2004, 21:38
They are here, sexy and here to stay put the only way we get otherwise is if one of u i running for Govt.............................................. ............

ForkTailedDevil
24th April 2004, 23:55
Well the later marks of the Spitfires definitley had a speed advantage over the PC9s and nearly all marks of Spits had the benefit of fixed guns, various combos of .303 and 20mm.The PC9 though has advantages in weapons payload and range plus all the electronics and ejection seats, but still I'm a WW2 geek so I'll have to champion the Spit.I'll put up a full set of stats if anyone wants me to too see the comparison.What marks of Spitfires did you end up with anyway?

Jaboo
25th April 2004, 17:08
We had seafires, denavalised MKIII's got them back in 1947, twas the hurricane before that, think they had merlin 55m engines, somewhere round 357mph at 6,000ft, dont have proper stats so its a bit of a guestimation on my part, sure slap up the stats for an MKIII seafire and PC-9, but i cant see a seafire getin one over on a PC-9:p

Fouga2
25th April 2004, 23:18
Nice reflection in the Glass of an AC pilot's Celtic boss on the sea dont you think in the above pic?


:-patriot:

Fouga2
25th April 2004, 23:18
Sorry it looks more like the "Q.F.I" Badge. Apologies.

ForkTailedDevil
25th April 2004, 23:50
Ok, a Seafire MkIII
Max Speed-348mph at 6000ft
Range-with external tank 725 miles
Ceiling-33800 ft
Engine-1585hp Merlin 55M
Weapons load-Fixed- 2x20mm cannon, 4x .303
Disposable-around 500lb of bombs

And for a PC9
Max Speed-345 mph at 20015ft
Range-1020 miles
Ceiling-40025 ft
Engine-1150hp Pratt and Whitney Canada PT6A-62
Weapons load-6 hardpoints for a total weight of 2293lbs

Those stats are the one I have to hand.You may have seen others, I know I have seen various ones aswell, but I took mine from the sources I trust the most. There may have been some changes to the PC-9 because I don't know if the IAC asked to have any mods to theirs that would change things.I not going to start putting up dimesions becasue that doesnt mean much though the Seafire is slightly larger but only by a couple of feet or so each way.
The PC-9 beats it on most things but if you want to have a dog fight between the two I'd have my money on the Seafire.

hptmurphy
26th April 2004, 19:51
The performance of the aircraft is quiet similar...I reckon at this stage it would be down to the guys flying them ! has the gauntlet been thrown down?:D

Aidan
27th April 2004, 08:36
Actually, its probably quite simple. Leaving the aerodynamics aside for the moment, the Seafire has over 400hp more than the PC-9, and delivers its max speed at 6000ft, the Pc-9 is fastest at 20,000ft (according to Flug Revue, on the deck the pc-9 will do 312mph -500kph).

So the higher the fight, the more it will suit the Pc-9, but the lower and slower the more it will suit the Seafire, specially with its power advantage, it can literally haul itself around faster than the Pc-9.

In terms of weapons, if we're talking guns only, then the Pc-9 will have to drag around bulky, draggy external pods, and still only have a pair of .50s, so it'll be even slower. Those Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon on the Seafire are a lot more effective. Aim-9Ms would change matters sifnificantly though. ;)

In short, it depends entirely on where, at what altitude, fuel loads and pilots. In short though, the Sea Fire is (or was) a combat aircraft, the PC-9M is not.

ForkTailedDevil
27th April 2004, 09:14
Ever seen the film "Final Countdown" when the F14 Tomcat pilot uses a Sidewinder on a Japanese Zero?That changed matters significantly..:cool:

morpheus
27th April 2004, 09:30
Simple really,

if the PC-9 pilot knew his aircraft and that of his enemy, he would know his best advantage was height for speed and maneoverability, so he would make sure the battle took place at his optimum performance altitude.

and that he had sidewinders :D

parkman
27th April 2004, 10:21
Oh just in passing if I'm not OT I remember watching spitfires [many moons ago]doing aerobatics.Now I recall the engine cutting out either in the climb or dive can't remember which and thinking that the pilots were practicing procedures for engine failure but I believe this was a design fault and in fact fuel did not flow into the engine in a dive/climb.Is this so?

Turkey
27th April 2004, 22:42
No Parkman, no Spitfire is allowed operate to-day without the schilling[spelling?] mod on the carb which prevents fuel starvation on a negative 'G' manouver.
Spit' drivers and P51's and other similiar overpowerd types have to pull the trottle, or the aircraft will carry on climbing ,till bordom or oxygen starvation sets in.:D :D :D

hptmurphy
28th April 2004, 23:11
The germans used direct injection which means there will always be fuel...cards don't work upside down,

Interestingly enough the Gypsy major installed in the Chipmunk and the Dove is actually fitted upside down...and is not fuel injected.

Jaboo
1st May 2004, 20:13
i dunno ftd, i'd have to stick with modern technology, although i appreciate where your comin from, bit of a world war two buff myself but not a big fan of the spitfire.

Scorpy
3rd May 2004, 21:47
Surely there is some combat flight sim or FS 2004 geek out there that can put the two of them up in a simulated fight! For my two cents, the G-suit would probably allow the PC9 to out-turn the spit which would be a useful advantage, and I suspect a spit turning at over 6 G would probably bend because of material technology improvements in modern years. It's all about tactics. The spit had a much higher Vne, so a slashing dive with all guns blazing would be the ideal spit tactic in this case, but a turning fight would be a loser, so once spotted, or if he missed on the first pass the spit could use all that extra power to extend vertically initially and then drop down and come in again using its inertia. My money would be on the spit. Now stick some titanium and moden welding techniques and carbon fibre on the spit and a HUD and you have a winner.

Roger McGee
9th May 2004, 22:00
From what i have read on the PC 9M, the aircraft seems quite a capable aircraft at what it's designed to do, train pilots to fly jet fighters. So, what is the point in having a jet trainer if we have no jets. I personally, in my humble opinion think the money could of been spent much more wisely on medium lift transport helicopters.
In comparing the spit and the PC 9M an overlooked factor is the handling the later models of the spit were capable of high speed but only by compromising handling.

Scorpy
9th May 2004, 23:15
Hear hear on the helis vs trainers. What was that GOC thinking?