Author Topic: fixing Spitfires, not about engines (Read 1199 times)

ramzey · « **on:** July 16, 2005, 01:36:41 PM »

please dont hijack this thread about bost +12 or bost +25 wishes

1. spit 5 in AH2 have wing type B, outside everything is looks ok, but quanity of amno for 20m cannnon should be downgraded to 60 per gun, not like in C wing

2. Spitfire mk 9 have wing model E and here are 2 problems:

a)this model of wing never had .303 installed

b) wing model E was installed in late version of spitfires witchone had diferent fin and rudder.
Current AH2 Spit its hybrid of only Pyro knows wich model

now we have early fuselage 1942-43 , wing wichone looks like early model but with armnent installed in 1944-45

suggestions for update

1. Spitfire mk5 with C wing with choice of 4x20mm or 2x20 mm +4x.303

2. Fix mk9 tail section to fit wing current arment and remove 2.20+4.,303 option (barly used by anyone)

or

live tail as is, change wing to C model and set to 4x20mm or 2x20+4x.303

this should fix a bit historical accuracy of current spitfire models in AH

regards
ramzey

Krusty · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2005, 01:39:45 PM »

Only, spits didn't have 4x20mm... only a few did, and they never became the norm nor did they become widespread. Very late version Spit 20+s and so forth had them, but they were mostly post-war and relatively few were made (the RAF moved on to jets not long after)

OOZ662 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2005, 02:14:12 PM »

I really think we don't need new spits, but rather just make our spits fit a certain model in their family; instead of being the Spitfire Mk. IX, it would be something like the Spitfire LF.IX

1K3 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2005, 02:30:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by OOZ662
I really think we don't need new spits, but rather just make our spits fit a certain model in their family; instead of being the Spitfire Mk. IX, it would be something like the Spitfire LF.IX

Compare to 109, The AH Spitfires have a huge gap.

evolution of 109 (using AH planes)

1940-41: Bf-109E-4
1941-42: Bf-109F-4
1942-43: Bf-109G-2
1943-44: Bf-109G-6
1944-45: Bf-109G-10

1940-41: Spit I
1941-42: Spit V
1942-43: Spit IX (merlin 61, 4x 303s and 2x 20mm cannon)
1943-44: NONE
1944-45: Spit XIV

Obviously AH needs 1 more spitfire... the LF Mk. VIII

1K3 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2005, 02:30:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by OOZ662
I really think we don't need new spits, but rather just make our spits fit a certain model in their family; instead of being the Spitfire Mk. IX, it would be something like the Spitfire LF.IX

Compare to 109, The AH Spitfires have a 1 year gap.

evolution of 109 (using AH planes)

1940-41: Bf-109E-4
1941-42: Bf-109F-4
1942-43: Bf-109G-2
1943-44: Bf-109G-6
1944-45: Bf-109G-10

spitfires

1940-41: Spit I
1941-42: Spit V
1942-43: Spit IX (merlin 61, 4x 303s and 2x 20mm cannon)
1943-44: NONE
1944-45: Spit XIV

Obviously AH needs 1 more spitfire... the LF Mk. VIII (with Merlin 66 engine) for 1943-44

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2005, 03:42:19 PM »

ramzey,

I don't think the engines or models in the game can be ignored. It is too big a problem.

1K3,

Actually it reads:

1940: Spitfire Mk Ia
1941: NONE
1942: Spitfire LF.Mk Vc (mislabeled as a Vb), Spitfire F.Mk IX
1943: NONE
1944: Spitfire Mk XIV (always perked and unusable)
1945: Spitfire Mk XIV (always perked and unusable)

Angus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 16, 2005, 03:52:53 PM »

And,,,,bear in mind that the Spitfire was VERY common in the skies of WW2
A 4 cannon spit in service would be very very late, - but there.
They were also around in the med, for low alt jobs, right?
This is already being covered in another thread, but Karnak has this rather nicely summed up IMHO.

Kweassa · « **Reply #7 on:** July 16, 2005, 03:59:43 PM »

Hmm.. so ramzey's suggestion on the Spit5 is designating it to Spitfire F.Mk.Vb, instead of the F.MK.Vc we have..

I think it's a very good idea that deserves serious thought from HTC!!!

I think it might somewhat offset the overusage towards the Spit5, and perhaps pursuade people to use the Spit9 more... or even better, use less Spit5s at all.

Think about it... the summary will be something like this.

Quote

-AH2 Spitfire F.MK.Vb('42)-

Pros
* runs at +16 boost
* only 4mph slower than the AH2 Spit9 at deck
* maneuvers better than the Spit9

Cons
* much slower than Spit9 as alt is higher
* only 120 rounds of 20mm ammo(60rpg)

-AH2 Spitfire F.MK.IX(Hybrid)-

Pros
* much faster than the Spit5 as alt grows
* 240 rounds of 20mm ammo(120rpg)

Cons
* Only 4 mph faster than the SpitV at deck
* maneuvers worse than the SpitV

I think it's a nice equalizer between pros and cons between the two Spitfires, and it's not an external limitation such as a perk price, but a purely historic representation of the plane.

If you want more maneuverability at the cost of less ammo, choose the SpitV... if you want better high alt performance, and more ammo at the cost of some maneuverability, choose the Spit9..!

...

IMO, the current Spit9 should be removed the 'e' wing option, and should use only 4x 30cal + 2x 20mm option, since it is a 1942 Spit9.

Since HTC is gonna rework on 109s and Spits soon, this is a chance to request a new model Spitfire represantative of late '43~'44 time period which uses the 'e' wing options... and the current Spit9 should be designated as;

"Spitfire F.MK.IXc('42)."

Squire · « **Reply #8 on:** July 16, 2005, 07:35:35 PM »

Ramzey, the AH Spitfire IX is a 1942 Merlin 61 engined "E" wing varient that never existed. The E armament should not be an option on that a/c.

The Spitfire V is a late 1942 Spitfire Vc (its just not called that), that has no drop tank option at all (which it should), but has a bomb, and 120 rpg for the 20mm.

The Spit V and IX need a proper overhaul. Neither version makes any sense.

The "E" wing should not appear on a Spit F. IX and the Spit V needs to be either a Vb or a Vc with the proper armament, options and engine and ammo load.

As far as a "4 x 20mm" load it was a very rare loudout mainly used for ground attack in the MED on the Spit Vc, and a few Spit VIIIs.

I hope HTC does a bit of research and sorts this out with the new models.

...and we need a 1943-44 Spit varient. LF IX, VIII, or LF XVI (16). The Spitfire XIV was a late 44-45 fighter and was not ever a dominant varient.

Its about having accurate representations in the game and getting away from "generic brand" Spits that mix/match equipment and performance.

Karnak · « **Reply #9 on:** July 16, 2005, 08:20:50 PM »

Kweassa,

It wouldn't look like that at all.

Most Spitfire Mk Vbs had 240 rounds of cannon ammo. ramzey is asking for the early Spitfire Mk Vb with Hispano Mk I guns.

It would be at +12lbs boost, 60 rounds per cannon and have a float carburator.

Adding that Spitfire Mk V would leave the second half of 1941 and the first half of 1942 bare and we'd still not have a 1943 or 1944 Spitfire.

Wotan · « **Reply #10 on:** July 16, 2005, 09:23:51 PM »

Quote

ramzey is asking for the early Spitfire Mk Vb

That's why you would need a proper Spit Vc. We know you won't get one but that's what you need whether you like or not

Seeker · « **Reply #11 on:** July 17, 2005, 11:20:44 AM »

Ever since I've been in AH; I've seen comments that our Spit IX is some sort of oddball which probably never existed or existed in insignificant numbers.

And yet..and yet...

HTC are not new at this. They were there when Kesmai first launched thier Spit; and prolly whined about it; they launched thier own Spit in WB from what ever they thought were reliable sources; and now they've made "our" Spit IX they way they have.

Why?

Why would they go through the evolution of online flight sims only to grab data out of the air when they get the chance to make their own? Are you guys so sure ours is "wrong"?

I've never seen a comment from HTC on this particular subject; but seeing as I reckon they're at least as well informed as any one posting; I'd love to know their reasons for choosing to model what I'm lead to believe is an obscure model; when presumably there's more representative models to choose and for which documentation would be more readily available?

OOZ662 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 17, 2005, 04:20:47 PM »

I think what they were trying to do was please the public; that never works. They bastardized a Spit9 in order to give everybody what they wanted. All the guys who just play don't care, but our historians can't stand it.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #13 on:** July 17, 2005, 05:59:23 PM »

i think ol "honey-baked hamzie" is on to somethin here. lowering the ammo load of the spit would discourage spittardism. case in point: Yak9-U

Squire · « **Reply #14 on:** July 17, 2005, 06:53:22 PM »

"Are you guys so sure ours is "wrong"? "

In a word, yes.

But look, nobody is "raving" against HTC, we just would like to see a few tweaked improvement in the IX series. By improvement I mean "more accurate" not "better". Its not a FM-whine about a missing 10mph.

Researching the E armament on the Spit IXs is not very hard, that armament came into service in mid-44, by which time the F.IX was no longer in use save a few units. Its pretty straightforward.

...and a new 1943-44 Spit of some kind added for TOD. Many discussions above.