Author Topic: Spitfire Wingtip Options. (Read 563 times)

Squire · « **on:** February 10, 2008, 09:24:03 PM »

I would like to see the "clipped" or "standard tips" as optional for the Spitfire XVI, and XIV.

The wing tips could be added or removed at the squadron level, as easily as a rocket or bomb loadout. Many squadrons flew both configurations. Most Spits had the option, I would focus on the XVI and XIV because they were amongst the two types that used them the most in 44-45.

Especially the Spit XVI, I would like to see either A) A full span seperate version, or B) Optional standard tips for it in the hanger.

With the upcoming "optional perk armament" stuff coming; ala the F4U-1C, perhaps thats something to fit in there. Example, "standard tips" would be 10 perks, or something like that? or even have the standard tips as non-perked with "clipping" costing perks.

Did a search, didn't see another thread on this here (in Wishlist)...so apologies if there was one.

Regards.

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2008, 09:26:59 PM »

As I understand it, not a single Spitfire Mk XVI had normal wingtips. They were all clipped.

Also, as I understand it, things that change the flight model can't be done that way.

Squire · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2008, 11:01:54 PM »

I have pics of RAF 2nd TAF XVIE's with standard tips, flying alongside a clipped tip version, wartime, NW Europe. Same for LF IXE's (the same a/c).

...as for the FM thing, again, "I don't know", I have not seen HTC say that, but how is it different than a gondola loadout? The drag, weight, ect, is now changed when you take gondolas, so im not so sure its not doable. I could be wrong. If thats the case then a seperate version is also possible.

The wingtips were changed on both the 14 and 16, and its an interesting option, and historical, if possible.

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2008, 12:37:06 AM »

You sure those were Mk XVIs and not LF.Mk IXes?

Drag and weight aren't lift. Or I could be wrong on that, I am not certain.

Greebo · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2008, 04:54:48 AM »

I vaguely recall suggesting this to HTC when I was doing default art for Spits. Apparently it isn't possible. I forget the exact reason, probably the code that lets them add different armament options can't cope with factoring in lift etc.

Krusty · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2008, 09:20:09 AM »

Word from HTC staff is they can't include separate motor options for the same airframe, nor can they include separate wingtips for the same frame.

This from way back when the 2.06 spit lineup was still being discussed (not released yet)

Squire · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2008, 09:20:21 AM »

Copy that, well, maybe just a standard tip XVI would be nice then as a seperate version.

They are XVIs, you can cross-ref the photos and squadron codes with the OOBs to confirm the type they are flying. Source is 2nd TAF Vol-1-3 series, very good info and they differentiate between IXs and XVIs, unlike some other books that don't. Squadrons flew XVIs or IXs, but not both, as the tools used to service them were different, from the US built Packards. That and you can x-ref serial #s if available.

...If HTC expressed an interest I would be happy to send the info along, and do some more digging.

Maybe some day we can get a bubble top XIV too.

Krusty · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2008, 01:09:08 PM »

It would be 99% identical to the VIII already in-game, only without wing tanks, FYI.

SgtPappy · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2008, 03:26:43 PM »

I was about to say that Krusty.

Adding a standard tip Spitfire XVI would be exactly the same as our Mk.VIII but a lot lighter. It's an unnecessary plane for the line since it's just WAY too similar.

it's like... oh.. we have 3 spits that perform exactly the same.

The most common Spitfire IX was the LF.IX with a Merlin 66 (which is essentially what you're asking for) but we have an F.IX with a Merlin 61. Why? It adds more colour to an otherwise boring Spitfire line.

Bronk · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2008, 04:48:55 PM »

Say it with me now.

Mk. XII

Squire · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2008, 05:18:22 PM »

We have a F.IX so there is a 1942-early 43 Spitfire in the lineup, thats why.

...and asking for options on a Spit is no different than asking them for a 109, or a P-38, or is it?

"to an otherwise boring Spitfire line." Oh, cc, I had no idea that was why.

Maybe we could get rid of the P-38L though, after all its 99 percent what a P-38J is, isn't it?

"I've got my fingers crossed for a P-38H. Do YOU?"

Hmmm, no. Can't say I do.

SgtPappy · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2008, 08:42:59 PM »

Nice attitude, buddy. Why would you randomly attack my sig? It has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about.

I like the Spitfire as much as the next dweeb, don't get me wrong. I'm a Canuck, born and raised with the Spitfire in my head. My avatar is the Spitfire Vb flown my J.G. Magee who wrote 'High Flight'. I'm not trying to attack your whole idea; my fave Spitfire next to the Mk.VIII is, in fact the regular span LF.IX (c-type wing). I'd love to see it to, but again... the Spitfire line wouldn't make sense with another random LF.IX.

The P-38L is added because there was a huge hole in the P-38 line... without the P-38L, there would be no 1944-45 P-38.

The Spitfire LF.IX isn't filling any holes. Imagine the Spifire IX gone and an LF.IXe in its place. They're all practically the same! There's no stepping stone taht shows Spitfire development, there'd be no 1942 Spitfire! That is what I mean by boring.

We have the 1943 Mk.IX because of what I said... there's now more variety to the line.

Woots Mk.XII!