Author Topic: Quick thought on the new Spits (Read 2659 times)

Pongo · « **Reply #15 on:** October 10, 2005, 12:36:59 PM »

Long wings malcom hood for the VIII
Clip wing bubble top for the XVI
Normal wings and malcome hood for the IX

Angus · « **Reply #16 on:** October 11, 2005, 07:31:17 AM »

Hehe
"and the high alt wings huh ? a spit with large wings should be a beast in turnfights at sea level lol"

A good turner compared to other fighters at absolutely any altitude.
But rolls worse.
Ceiling High.
ROC probably better.
Top speed probably worse untill the alt becomes very high.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 11, 2005, 10:09:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Hehe
"and the high alt wings huh ? a spit with large wings should be a beast in turnfights at sea level lol"

A good turner compared to other fighters at absolutely any altitude.
But rolls worse.
Ceiling High.
ROC probably better.
Top speed probably worse untill the alt becomes very high.

And the fact that they put standard wingtips on the VII when they had to use it in a normal fighter roll during 44.

EdXCal · « **Reply #18 on:** October 11, 2005, 11:48:41 AM »

I'm not sure if the longer wings gave better turn rate, look at the Ta-152, larger wings aren't always better.
Maybe at low alt they made to much drag or had structure problems, otherwise, if turn was that good they may have used them more then on just high alt models.
Either that or the roll rate was just that much more important to spit pilots.

I'm hoping that the spit FM is toyed with a bit, as many said we've got the best spits by far in Aces High, I like the spits, I used to be a big fan of the Seafire, but they do need to get toned down a bit. And even if they were, they'ed still been great aircraft as most likly one of the most popular.
I guess I just grow tired of takin' off in something and everyone else is in a spit, I don't even need Icons anymore, it's always a spit. :-/

Edward

Bruno · « **Reply #19 on:** October 11, 2005, 12:14:08 PM »

Quote

I'm not sure if the longer wings gave better turn rate, look at the Ta-152, larger wings aren't always better.

The 152 out turns the D-9...

Angus · « **Reply #20 on:** October 11, 2005, 12:20:42 PM »

Longer tips in this case means more wing area, that results in lower wingloading and lower spanloading. Therefore presumably better turnrate.
Drag is increased obviously since a bigger wing is being pulled through the airmass.
I belive the rollrate is documented, - being lower than the rollrate of a normal wing. Also to be expected.
And as for the "best Spits being in AH", - no.
We have the best of the MkV. We have a so-so Mk I, an early Mk IX with some abnormal wing, and a perked XIV that seems to be a wee porked, - at least regarding ROC and turn.

Kev367th · « **Reply #21 on:** October 11, 2005, 01:25:38 PM »

We have the best spits?

New lineup -
Spit I - 12lbs boost, so OK
Spit V - 12lbs boost (down from 16), more representative, so OK
Spit VIII - 18lbs boost, so OK
Spit IX - Staying same apart form loadouts, so OK
Spit XIV - 21lbs (up from 18), so yup the best one (makes it worth perk price).
Spit XVI - 18lbs, BIG DISAPPOINTMENT, puts it at LF IX 1943 performance.

So basically still no free Spit post 1943 with the matching performance, a XVI at 25lbs puts it in the late 1944 bracket, and would have been a perfect adversary for the upcoming G-14.
Apparently a Spit XVI at 25lbs is too good for the MA lolololol.

Bring on the 1945 F.21 - 455-460mph at 20k

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 11, 2005, 01:55:05 PM »

Where are you getting these numbers?

Kev367th · « **Reply #23 on:** October 11, 2005, 01:59:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Where are you getting these numbers?

Phoned up HTC HQ and spoke to Pyro personally.
As of the last call that was his intentions.
Although a few people has sent him some more data on the Mk XVI since then. His conscern was its 5 mins (WEP), 25lbs boost, 0-5000ft climb rate (5700fpm).
Sent him docs form Rolls Royce and the National Archives showing that that was only available in a specific configuration (not one usually setup for flying with).
In fact the climb rate 0-5000ft with clipped wings seems closer to 4700fpm.

The XVI at 18lbs boost has EXACTLY the same performance as a 1943 LF IX, same engine although built in the U.S. instead of U.K.
Kind of defeated the whole point of using 25lbs boost which gives us a range of Spits from 1940 all the way through to 1945.

As an aside the first 2 sqns of LF IX converted to 25lbs boost May 1944.

Bronk · « **Reply #24 on:** October 11, 2005, 02:16:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by EdXCal
we've got the best spits by far in Aces High
Edward

If we had the best spits modeled in AH we would have the Mk XII .
Probably one of the best low alt figters built in ww2 . IMHO

But we will never see it why ? It is a bit rare and I am sure HT doesn't want to hear the whine it will cause.

Bronk

Also HT would go broke handing out the cheeze to go with that whine.

Kev367th · « **Reply #25 on:** October 11, 2005, 04:11:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
If we had the best spits modeled in AH we would have the Mk XII .
Probably one of the best low alt figters built in ww2 . IMHO

But we will never see it why ? It is a bit rare and I am sure HT doesn't want to hear the whine it will cause.

Bronk

Also HT would go broke handing out the cheeze to go with that whine.

Spit XII is no rarer than certain other planes already in AH.
120 built / 120 all operational.

Whats irksome is the 'big' two get most of their stuff 1944/45 free. Latest Spit we have, and will have even after the remodel is the 1944 Spit 14 (perked). Hell even Russia has it's late war unperked ride.

Not counting the XVI because at 18lbs boost it puts the performance squarely in 1943.
25lbs boost puts the XVI late 1944/early 1945.

For a true 1945 plane we'd need the F.21, and if Pyro thinks the XVI is to good for the MA at 25lbs boost, NO WAY we'd get a F.21 at 18lbs or 21lbs.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 11, 2005, 04:51:54 PM »

So, do you think that the Spit 16 will have it's stats boosted? Or put exactly where you listed it?

Btw, I forget where I read it, but I read that the Spit 21 was incredibly unstable.

Kev367th · « **Reply #27 on:** October 11, 2005, 06:08:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
So, do you think that the Spit 16 will have it's stats boosted? Or put exactly where you listed it?

Btw, I forget where I read it, but I read that the Spit 21 was incredibly unstable.

Last I heard the XVI was at 18lbs only. So basically all we gain in free Spits is 1 year (1943), as the XVI at 18lbs boost is identical in performance to the 1943 LF Mk IX.

Originally yes the F.21 suffered yaw problems. Was fixed by the time it entered service, some were even fitted with a 'Spiteful' tail.
What would be nice was the 4x20mm hizookas that were fitted as standard.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 11, 2005, 06:15:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Last I heard the XVI was at 18lbs only. So basically all we gain in free Spits is 1 year (1943), as the XVI at 18lbs boost is identical in performance to the 1943 LF Mk IX.

Originally yes the F.21 suffered yaw problems. Was fixed by the time it entered service, some were even fitted with a 'Spiteful' tail.
What would be nice was the 4x20mm hizookas that were fitted as standard.

No Spiteful tail on the 21. That did get on the 22 and 24. Stability and yaw problems were taken care of however.

Angus · « **Reply #29 on:** October 11, 2005, 06:30:24 PM »

°So the problem with Spits is that they are too good