Quick thought on the new Spits

[Bruno]

No value - Guess you just pick and choose AS USUAL.

Sure I pick and choose. I chose Pyro's words:

I think there's been a general consensus in the various threads about how to change the Spit lineup that I pretty much concur with.

There has been some advocacy for a +25lb boost clipped wing Mk XVI. I really don't see what hole that fills. It would pretty much fall into the same category as the XIV. I have no qualms with that plane, but I think going with a 2000+hp version of it would be a waste as it would end up perked and CM's wouldn't use it much either.

__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

Over what you claim he said.

Useless - Take it anyway way you want, you said useless as in scenario use etc, I just pointed out there are equally 'useless' planes using your standards, and picked the obvoius one out. In fact lets generalise, I don't believe there has ever been scenario D-Day or beyond? In which case theres a load of 'useless planes'.

This thread isn't about those other 'useless planes'. If you are looking to discuss those other 'useless planes' then use the forum search feature and drag out an appropriate thread.

There has been plenty of late war scenarios and/or events. The problem with those, however, is the general disparity in forces that make them relatively unpopular. The best scenarios and events are ones that areas close to evenly matched as possible.

No the VIII isn't a perfect stand-in for the LF IX, but it's close enough.

A Spit XVI @ 18 lbs is even closer and a far better choice...

If we'd asked for a I, Vb, Vc, FIX, LFIX, LFVIII, XII, FXIV, LFXVI all we would have got is "OH NO NOT ANOTHER SPITFIRE" whine.

The whine isn't in the asking, the whine is in the repeated exaggerations and dramatics you use over and over. Anyone can search your posts on Spit additions to AH. I have and they full of self-pitying and whining intermingled with "its not fair he's has such and such and I don't..."

Guppy would like a Merlin 66 XVI CW @ 25 lbs, but he doesn't make-up exaggerated rationalizations as to why, he just likes it.

But this discussion isn't about other planes or other Spitfires. Its about a XVI at 25 lbs boost. The reason Pyro has given on this forum is clear and its been repeated by myself and others. At 25 lbs it would less useful then one at 18lbs. This has f'all to do with other aircraft.

You never answered - Any problem with having a free 1942 Spit XII?

I don't need to answer your question because it has no bearing on my points. However, I will say that if the XII were added on its own, not at the expense of a 'better choice' then I could careless. I don't care anything about what planes gets added as long as it fills some roll or gap and contributes to making ToD a success. Once those rolls / gaps are filled then who cares...

[Kev367th]

I don't 'claim' he said it, he DID say it. As I stated there's a lot more in 25 min phone call that a short post on a BB.
Your choice, take the whole story, or just what fits your way of thinking.

No it wasn't about useless planes - You introduced the term useless in relation to scenarios etc. You don't like it pointed out by your standards there are other useless planes fine, but the comparison I made is valid.
TOD is unlikely for a while to get anywhere near up do D-Day judging by posts, so wheres the point in redoing or introducing any post June 1944 models. None by your reckoning, they wouldn't be useful.

If pointing out the disparities between the LW and RAF planesets is exaggerations I suggest you take a real close look at the actual planes available, which year, what power settings, on both sides.

I guess we'll just have to disagree rather than going round in endless circles.

[Guppy35]

Add the XII and you can skip all the rest, at least for me

As for the +25 XVI, that would be my wish for the MA.  I think for scenarios etc an LFIX/XVI with +18 is plenty.

The +25 wish is purely based on my liking Allied birds.  I don't fly LA7s and I don't fly LW birds outside of the 109E (kinda like the Emil)  But that's just me.

So when the LA7s go roaring past at light speed down low, I'd like a Spit to be able to give chase in.  It's as simple as that.  I don't want to be forced into LA7s just to keep up.  Spit history is a longtime passion so flying a virtual Spit is far more enjoyable then taking something I have list historical interest in.

But if the XII ever showed up, I'd have the bird to chase down LAs

[Karnak]

Bruno,

The LF.Mk XVIe has the wrong armament and ordnance capabilities for a 1943 LF.Mk IX.  That is one of the things we are trying to get away from, .50 cals on Spits before they're supposed to be there.

Explain what performance differences the LF.Mk VIII has from the LF.Mk IX that make it less suitable than the LF.Mk XVIe which has an armament that is not appropriate?

The clipped wings are not required as the LF designation does not indicate clipped wings, just the altitude bands the engine is optimized for.  Many LF Spits had full span wings.


Without the LF.Mk VIII what we end up having is the mid 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX having to hold the line in scenarios, the CT or ToD until mid 1944 when the LF.Mk XVIe can finally be used.  That is two years in a fighter that can barely break 320mph at AH combat altitudes.  I can assure you that the guys running the CT, when faced with a 1943 or early '44 setup and having to pick the overpowered LF.Mk XVIe or the underpowered F.Mk IX will almost always pick the underpowered F.Mk IX lest the whines from the Luftwaffe segment be deafening.  Given you are a Luftwaffe fan I cannot help but see your advocation of just the F.Mk IX and LF.Mk XVI as a ploy to face weaker Spitfires.

[Bruno]

I don't 'claim' he said it, he DID say it. As I stated there's a lot more in 25 min phone call that a short post on a BB.
Your choice, take the whole story, or just what fits your way of thinking.

I can make judgments based on what Pyro has said and what you have said. Given your propensity towards 'dramatics' balanced against Pyro's own words its not a hard guess as to which I believe.

You introduced the term useless in relation to scenarios etc.

It wasn't used at random. If you understand the word 'context', and re-read what I have written, it was in direct reply to your claim that the reason there will be no 25lbs Spit is because:

IT'S TOO GOOD FOR THE MA.

The reason to go with an 18lb Spit XVI is it will be more useful overall.

I asked that you back up your claim with a verbatim quote of any one who said you can't have a 25lb Spit because its too good for the main. Instead of backing up your claim you offer nothing more then 'Pyro told on the phone' even though this own words on this forum contradict you. Since that doesn't work you created several 'strawman' like 'the Ta-152 is useless' or 'what about other useless planes'. Other useless planes have no bearing on the usefulness of the a 25lbs Spit and don't help your argument in any way. The time to whine about those other useless planes would have been before they were introduced. Since they are in game they are irrelevant.

So when the LA7s go roaring past at light speed down low, I'd like a Spit to be able to give chase in. It's as simple as that. I don't want to be forced into LA7s just to keep up. Spit history is a longtime passion so flying a virtual Spit is far more enjoyable then taking something I have list historical interest in.

Well then just say that. Don't create BS rationalizations about why one is needed. You want a 25lb Spit, that doesn't change the fact that an 18 lb Spit XVI is the better and more useful choice for AH overall.

I guess we'll just have to disagree rather than going round in endless circles.

There are multiple threads where you whine about this very subject. I am almost positive you will start another. If you are tired of going in circles then stop whining and posting about a 25lb Spit. The Spit LF.XVI @ 18lbs is a good  and useful addition to AH.

If HTC were to do an LF.IX @ 18 lbs or both a LF.XVI @ 18 lbs and 25 lbs then no one would give a crap. However, if the choice is between an 18 lbs or 25 lbs then the best choice overall is to go with the 18 lbs. It will contribute more to all aspects of AH. It will have use in the main over the F.IX and a Spit V @ 12 lbs. It will have plenty of use in scenarios, events and especially ToD. If you can't understand that then I don't know what to tell other then either accept that or keep on whining...

[Karnak]

Bruno,

You made the assertion that the LF.Mk XVIe was more suitable to sub for the LF.Mk IX than the LF.Mk VIII would be.  Please back up that assertion and explain what performance differences the LF.Mk VIII has that outweigh the LF.Mk XVIe's completely unsuitable armament.  I am assuming both at at +18lbs boost here.

Don't just make assertions like that without explaining why you see things that way.

[1K3]

I think most people are right about Spit LF 16.  Spit LF 16 with +25 boost is too uber.  It can maintain 5000+ fpm climb up to 10,000 feet.  My goodness even the latest fighter jets in the 1950s (Mig 15 and F-80/86) can barely maintain that kind of fpm rate.

I would love an explanation if +25 boost spit LF 16 was widely used in 1944-45.

[Bruno]

The LF.Mk XVIe has the wrong armament and ordnance capabilities for a 1943 LF.Mk IX. That is one of the things we are trying to get away from, .50 cals on Spits before they're supposed to be there.

This isn't really much of issue except for hybridization of the current F.IX. One could make the exception for the .50s. Ordnance can be determined by the CMs in events and scenarios or set by the mission in ToD.

Explain what performance differences the LF.Mk VIII has from the LF.Mk IX that make it less suitable than the LF.Mk XVIe which has an armament that is not appropriate?

Quote where I said 'performance differences'. The VIII will have longer range over an LF.XVI It will also be slightly heavier which will marginally affect acceleration and climb. Range will be an issue in ToD, events, and scenarios.

As I said .303s or .50s aren't really much of a concern especially considering the lethality of the Spitfires in question rest with the Hizookas.

The clipped wings are not required as the LF designation does not indicate clipped wings, just the altitude bands the engine is optimized for. Many LF Spits had full span wings.

Thanks for that I guess... However, I know that and where did I say LF = clipped winged? The Spit F.IX with better high altitude performance will serve well in ToD, events, and scenarios. Let's not pretend this plane doesn't have its advantages. Even the LF doesn't mean low alt, its mostly medium altitude and thats what AH is missing. Whether it be an LF.IX or LF.XVI (e wing or not) its still a good choice.

Without the LF.Mk VIII what we end up having is the mid 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX having to hold the line in scenarios, the CT or ToD until mid 1944 when the LF.Mk XVIe can finally be used.

What do you mean 'Without the LF.Mk VIII'? Who said AH shouldn't have a LF.VIII? It should and its a good choice.

Again the issue of armament is relatively small. However, what would adding a 25 lbs Spit XVI do to address that?

It would be much more practical to simple utilize the LF.XVIe as a substitute for a LF.IX or earlier LF.XVI rather then the VIII. But as I said given no other choice that would be fine

Given you are a Luftwaffe fan I cannot help but see your advocation of just the F.Mk IX and LF.Mk XVI as a ploy to face weaker Spitfires.

You would be wrong and quite frankly your whole line of reasoning as explained in your post is dubious at best. As I said the the choice between an E wing with .50s is hardly worth batting an eye over, ordnance in events and scenarios is set by the CMS, in ToD by the mission.

The CT will already be facing 'weaker Spitfires' in that the Spit V (which sees more use in the CT then any other) will be reduced to 12 lbs. All the CT CMs currently sub up for allied planes as is and I am sure they would listen to any reasonable argument for the XVIs inclusion, as long as its at 18lbs boost. At 25lbs it all but ensures that you will never see it in the CT, Events scenarios or ToD. The CT is all but dead any way. With the main having a Fighter Town area set aside and ToD I can't see many folks choosing the CT over those 2.

As I said to Kev, the LF.XVIe would be the most practical choice. Worrying about .50s over .303s is just ridiculous in the overall scheme of things.

Since you seem stuck on this I assume its because my reply here:

Clipped-wing LF.XVIE with bubble top just 'cause it looks cool...

That was really intended as sarcasm more then an actual request...

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by 1K3
I think most people are right about Spit LF 16.  Spit LF 16 with +25 boost is too uber.  It can maintain 5000+ fpm climb up to 10,000 feet.  My goodness even the latest fighter jets in the 1950s (Mig 15 and F-80/86) can barely maintain that kind of fpm rate.

I would love an explanation if +25 boost spit LF 16 was widely used in 1944-45.

The 5000+fpm climb rate is a little misleading.
It is only possible with a cold engine and the radiators wired shut. Climbrate is actually closer to 4500-4700fpm (under 5k only) in fighting trim.

Bruno - Fine then why not just call me a liar instead of being an arse and *****footing around it.
Take another look at the thread you refer to, he also states if it was at 25lbs it would probably be perked.
I WONDER WHY.
Possibly for the exact reasons we discussed over the phone? The same reasons you seem to think are coming out of thin air.

Oh so we can let incorrect armaments and loadouts slide when it suits you?
Longer range could be accounted for by limiting fuel loading (no loading of wing tanks I assume), easy.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Karnak
Bruno,

You made the assertion that the LF.Mk XVIe was more suitable to sub for the LF.Mk IX than the LF.Mk VIII would be.  Please back up that assertion and explain what performance differences the LF.Mk VIII has that outweigh the LF.Mk XVIe's completely unsuitable armament.  I am assuming both at at +18lbs boost here.

Don't just make assertions like that without explaining why you see things that way.

I guess you can't read... I will stop short of calling you a liar, because I know what I wrote but please post where I said 'performance differences':

Here's what I actually said:

The LF.VIII could stand in but its longer range is less then ideal as a sub for an LF.IX

and

No a VIII has some different characteristics that make it a less suitable substitute for a LF.IX. If forced with no other choice then yes a VIII could fill that roll.

Now since you are 'making demands' for me to 'back things up' I expect you to do the same or apologize for being wrong.

Also, if you had waited a few minutes for my last reply you would have gotten an answer.

[Bruno]

Bruno - Fine then why not just call me a liar instead of being an arse

I called it what I think it was, exaggerating on your part. I thought I was clear...

[Squire]

As I think it has already been covered, its unlikely we will see any +25 lb Merlin 66 Spits as they dont really fill a planeset gap since we have the Spit XIV.

As to the Spit 16e, it may be introduced at +18 lbs to fill the 1944 set.

Spit 16e and Spit 9e, at 18lbs are for all intent and purpose, the same a/c. One has a Packard Merlin 266, one has a British made Merlin 66, made to the same specs. Both had clipped wings sometimes, and both had models with the broad chord rudder (the pointy top rudder).  

We might see a Spit LF VIII to gap the Spit F.IX-Spit 16e. We may not.

...and just to clarify, a Spit 16 does not by definition make it a +25 lb model. It ran on 100 octane in service before going to 150. So either is possible to model.

[Karnak]

What is the difference between "different characteristics" and "performance differences"?  They seem to be interchangable to me.

And no, the CMs in the CT cannot disable ordnace options or the .50 cals.


I am on the fence in regards to the +25lbs boost, but 4,700fpm at sea level doesn't sound nearly so bad as 5,700fpm at sea level did.  As I recall, Pyro did say that it might be re-evaluated sometime in the future.

The fact is that we need to maximize the coverage with can get out of as few types as possible.  That is why I suggested the list that has been argued over in so many threads since then.  Pyro read those threads, and basically agreed though he thinks the +25lbs boost XVI would be too much for the MA and would overlap the XIV perhaps, and that the VIII may be extraneous.  Given his take on the +25lbs XVI I agree that the VIII may be extraneous, but I would still like to see it for other reasons I stated in the second post in this thread.

My original list was:

Spitfire Mk Ia: 1940 (Merlin II at +12lbs boost)
Spitfire Mk Vb: 1941-mid 1942 (Merlin 45 at +12lbs boost)
Spitfire F.Mk IX: mid 1942-mid 1943 (Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost, no rockets or .50 cals)
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII: mid 1943-late 1944 (Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost, full span universal wing)
Spitfire F.Mk XIV: late 1944-end of war, perked (Griffon 65 at +21lbs boost to justify the being perked, full span wing)
Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe: late 1944-end of war (Merlin 266 at +25lbs boost, clipped "e" wing)
Seafire L.Mk III: most produced Seafire (Merlin 55M at +18lbs boost)

I felt that list gave good coerverage of the entire war and all theaters.  As good as could be achieved with seven versions of the Spitfire in anycase.

[Bruno]

What is the difference between "different characteristics" and "performance differences"? They seem to be interchangable to me.

Are you playing games with me? I explained what I meant right here:

The VIII will have longer range over an LF.XVI It will also be slightly heavier which will marginally affect acceleration and climb. Range will be an issue in ToD, events, and scenarios.

Spitfire Mk VIII Testing (merlin 63 but compares IX and VIII).

And no, the CMs in the CT cannot disable ordnance options or the .50 cals.

I don't care anything about the CT but I never said ordnance options could be set in the CT (actually then can but that's here nor there). I certainly said nothing about disabling .50s. What I said was the difference in lethality between the .303s and .50 are irrelevant as the majority of lethality rest in the Hizookas.

The fact is that we need to maximize the coverage with can get out of as few types as possible. That is why I suggested the list that has been argued over in so many threads since then. Pyro read those threads, and basically agreed though he thinks the +25lbs boost XVI would be too much for the MA and would overlap the XIV perhaps, and that the VIII may be extraneous. Given his take on the +25lbs XVI I agree that the VIII may be extraneous, but I would still like to see it for other reasons I stated in the second post in this thread.

Maximizing coverage would include everything that Pyro has suggested. Pyro never said a 25lbs boost would be too much for the main. Thats what kev says Pyro said. What Pyro  said on this forum was for the main it would probably be perked and all but useless for the CMs. I will quote it again:

I think there's been a general consensus in the various threads about how to change the Spit lineup that I pretty much concur with.

There has been some advocacy for a +25lb boost clipped wing Mk XVI. I really don't see what hole that fills. It would pretty much fall into the same category as the XIV. I have no qualms with that plane, but I think going with a 2000+hp version of it would be a waste as it would end up perked and CM's wouldn't use it much either.

__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

Now you agreed with this in other threads, I can quote you if you like.

Even with a XVI @ 18 lbs boost doesn't mean the VIII will have no use in AH, it will.

As I said a XVIe while a '44 plane can fill in for a '43 LF.IX, the .50s won't mean a whole lot overall...

[Karnak]

Bruno,

You may claim that, but it isn't what happens in practice.  In practice anything that can be used as a reason not to allow a Spit to be used is used for that.  We have, for a long time, had people who insist the Spitfire Mk IX we have is a 1944 Spitfire due to the .50 cal options and RAF/Spitfire fans asking for a better free Spitfire are being silly.

As I have said I am on the fence in regards to +25lbs boost.  I was pretty well convinced that +18lbs was the way to go until the new information was obtained that reduces the +25lbs Spitfire's climb by 1000fpm.  I am content with either boost rating.  My personal hope right now is that we get the LF.Mk VIII, though I am not really expecting it.  Unfortunately for me I really don't like the clipped wings or .50 cals so without the LF.Mk VIII I am still going to be stuck in the F.Mk IX if I use a Spitfire.  That is really why I want the Mk VIII so much.