Perk The Spit16

[Hoarach]

Yea I find it suprising that it is undermodeled.  A plane that is this good in the MA, I can only imagine what it would be like if it was modeled correctly.  It wouldnt be totally worth flying anything else as that plane would be too perfect.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Pooface
the fact is though that it is vastly undermodelled, and even pyro and HT have admitted this, because they dont want to perk it.

Crap like this realy gets under my skin. Almost getting to the point of post like this will be deleted. Just because someone doesn't agree with our modleing , next comes we undermodelled it, now claims come we admit it, had it as a purpose for undermoldling it.

The point is, we do no such thing.And is 100% the oposit of what our goals are.


HiTech

[Hoarach]

Originally posted by hitech
Crap like this realy gets under my skin. Almost getting to the point of post like this will be deleted. Just because someone doesn't agree with our modleing , next comes we undermodelled it, now claims come we admit it, had it as a purpose for undermoldling it.

The point is, we do no such thing.And is 100% the oposit of what our goals are.


HiTech

I have nothing against how they model planes, and HT and his staff make the game and not us so go by their rules.  (Not trying to suck up to HT )  Too many times have I heard that the plane is undermodeled but I cant see it being increased in performace as it would be too good of a plane and make the temp look like child toy of a perk plane.  The arena would be crawling with them planes and wouldnt be too much fun only seeing one plane.

[Pooface]

Originally posted by hitech
Crap like this realy gets under my skin. Almost getting to the point of post like this will be deleted. Just because someone doesn't agree with our modleing , next comes we undermodelled it, now claims come we admit it, had it as a purpose for undermoldling it.

The point is, we do no such thing.And is 100% the oposit of what our goals are.


HiTech

oooh, sorry

i seem to recall pyro saying he was worried about it being unbalancing?

the 1944 boost level was 21 lbs, and later became 25lbs. i was just a bit forceful with my suggestion, sorry. what i was suggesting is that if it waa to be perked i would like to see it updated to a later model, to justify the perking

[Pooface]

Originally posted by Hoarach
I have nothing against how they model planes, and HT and his staff make the game and not us so go by their rules.  (Not trying to suck up to HT )  Too many times have I heard that the plane is undermodeled but I cant see it being increased in performace as it would be too good of a plane and make the temp look like child toy of a perk plane.  The arena would be crawling with them planes and wouldnt be too much fun only seeing one plane.

yup, and i seem to recall that pyro said that for that reason they would model it as very early model, so as not to unbalance the arena. correct me if i am wrong

[Krusty]

Okay, it's not "undermodeled". Neither is our 1941 Bf109F-4. Neither is our 1941 SpitV. It is modeled at the boost HTC chose for it.

Sometimes a plane, regardless of what year its from, can 100% dominate any fight anywhere and still survive against the worst odds and the best opponents. The plane used to be the 1942 version of the SpitV. Now it is the 1944 version of the Spit16 with 18 boost. Note that the 16 *IS* a 1944 plane. If you don't think the 50cal are better, you've never stayed in the fighter after your 20mm are gone. The 50cal in the 14/16 are worth at least 3-4 more kills. The 4x303s in the 5/8/9 are worth only 2 kills at best. 1 50cal round is worth just over 3 .303 rounds. So 2 50cal is still worth 6 .303s, not to mention convergence is simplified, etc etc.

It doesn't matter if the plane is modeled at +18 boost. It doesn't matter if Spit LFIXs in 1943 had the same boost. It doesn't matter that the LFXIV moved on to +21 boost. None of that matters because in AH this plane is STILL the best plane in the entire planeset. If we had the spitLFIX y'all would still complain "Oooh, it's only a 1943 ride" or "oooh, it doesn't have 4x20mm hispanos and 200 rounds per gun!!".

The spit16, as we have it now, is the best killer in the game. Consider that this is WITH the 80% newbies and schmucks flying it, it STILL has the most kills by a large margin.

Guppy, I seriously have a problem with your "numbers" argument. "It's a higher number so it must be better, right?" How, then do you explain the SpitV being the most used spit by a WIDE margin for many years? 9 is a larger number than 5! Yet the 5 was the most used. Folks fly the 16 because it lets them do things that the 8 and the 9 and the 5 can't, and the 14 is perked so it doesn't get much use. So your argument doesn't hold water. Folks fly it because they tried a couple sorties in different spits, or asked what was best, and the plane that gave them the most kills in the least amount of time was the 16. Numbers/names have nothing to do with it. You could name it "Spitty-Doodle-Dandy Mk1" and it would still get the most kills. This game thrives on performance, not naming. Sorry for the tangent reply, but you keep bringing that argument up and I thoroughly disagree every time you do.

[Pooface]

Originally posted by Krusty
Okay, it's not "undermodeled". Neither is our 1941 Bf109F-4. Neither is our 1941 SpitV. It is modeled at the boost HTC chose for it.

Sometimes a plane, regardless of what year its from, can 100% dominate any fight anywhere and still survive against the worst odds and the best opponents. The plane used to be the 1942 version of the SpitV. Now it is the 1944 version of the Spit16 with 18 boost. Note that the 16 *IS* a 1944 plane. If you don't think the 50cal are better, you've never stayed in the fighter after your 20mm are gone. The 50cal in the 14/16 are worth at least 3-4 more kills. The 4x303s in the 5/8/9 are worth only 2 kills at best. 1 50cal round is worth just over 3 .303 rounds. So 2 50cal is still worth 6 .303s, not to mention convergence is simplified, etc etc.

It doesn't matter if the plane is modeled at +18 boost. It doesn't matter if Spit LFIXs in 1943 had the same boost. It doesn't matter that the LFXIV moved on to +21 boost. None of that matters because in AH this plane is STILL the best plane in the entire planeset. If we had the spitLFIX y'all would still complain "Oooh, it's only a 1943 ride" or "oooh, it doesn't have 4x20mm hispanos and 200 rounds per gun!!".

The spit16, as we have it now, is the best killer in the game. Consider that this is WITH the 80% newbies and schmucks flying it, it STILL has the most kills by a large margin.

Guppy, I seriously have a problem with your "numbers" argument. "It's a higher number so it must be better, right?" How, then do you explain the SpitV being the most used spit by a WIDE margin for many years? 9 is a larger number than 5! Yet the 5 was the most used. Folks fly the 16 because it lets them do things that the 8 and the 9 and the 5 can't, and the 14 is perked so it doesn't get much use. So your argument doesn't hold water. Folks fly it because they tried a couple sorties in different spits, or asked what was best, and the plane that gave them the most kills in the least amount of time was the 16. Numbers/names have nothing to do with it. You could name it "Spitty-Doodle-Dandy Mk1" and it would still get the most kills. This game thrives on performance, not naming. Sorry for the tangent reply, but you keep bringing that argument up and I thoroughly disagree every time you do.

yes, i understand all of that, what i suggested (kinda bad wording maybe) that if it were to be perked, i would like to see it modelled as a later version

[Krusty]

Ah, poo, yes I understood your request. I guess my reply was to all the other folks saying "Why perk it -- it's ONLY a xxxx year plane!" -- to which I reply even with every slack-jawed yokel flying them they STILL get 30% more kills that even the LA7 and the n1k2, which are BOTH leaps and bounds above every other plane in the game. I was trying to say that perking something because it's too damn good doesn't rely on the year of the plane or the like.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Krusty
Okay, it's not "undermodeled". Neither is our 1941 Bf109F-4. Neither is our 1941 SpitV. It is modeled at the boost HTC chose for it.

Sometimes a plane, regardless of what year its from, can 100% dominate any fight anywhere and still survive against the worst odds and the best opponents. The plane used to be the 1942 version of the SpitV. Now it is the 1944 version of the Spit16 with 18 boost. Note that the 16 *IS* a 1944 plane. If you don't think the 50cal are better, you've never stayed in the fighter after your 20mm are gone. The 50cal in the 14/16 are worth at least 3-4 more kills. The 4x303s in the 5/8/9 are worth only 2 kills at best. 1 50cal round is worth just over 3 .303 rounds. So 2 50cal is still worth 6 .303s, not to mention convergence is simplified, etc etc.

It doesn't matter if the plane is modeled at +18 boost. It doesn't matter if Spit LFIXs in 1943 had the same boost. It doesn't matter that the LFXIV moved on to +21 boost. None of that matters because in AH this plane is STILL the best plane in the entire planeset. If we had the spitLFIX y'all would still complain "Oooh, it's only a 1943 ride" or "oooh, it doesn't have 4x20mm hispanos and 200 rounds per gun!!".

The spit16, as we have it now, is the best killer in the game. Consider that this is WITH the 80% newbies and schmucks flying it, it STILL has the most kills by a large margin.

Guppy, I seriously have a problem with your "numbers" argument. "It's a higher number so it must be better, right?" How, then do you explain the SpitV being the most used spit by a WIDE margin for many years? 9 is a larger number than 5! Yet the 5 was the most used. Folks fly the 16 because it lets them do things that the 8 and the 9 and the 5 can't, and the 14 is perked so it doesn't get much use. So your argument doesn't hold water. Folks fly it because they tried a couple sorties in different spits, or asked what was best, and the plane that gave them the most kills in the least amount of time was the 16. Numbers/names have nothing to do with it. You could name it "Spitty-Doodle-Dandy Mk1" and it would still get the most kills. This game thrives on performance, not naming. Sorry for the tangent reply, but you keep bringing that argument up and I thoroughly disagree every time you do.

So explain to me how it is better then the 8 or 9 again?  Are you saying it's the .5 mg vs the 303s? That's why it's the beast?

If you are arguing guns that doesn't say anything about performance other then firepower.  Well that explains the Tiffie drivers, or Hurri IIc drivers etc.

Funny part about the old Spit V is it was doing what a 1943 Spit V should have.  I remember posting the performance numbers for the 43 LFVc vs the FIX and for the alts of the fights in AH the Spit LFVc was the better bird in speed, climb rate etc.  AH doesn't get fought at 25-30K, so the old Spit V was the better bird.  Folks figured it out when they saw some of the best sticks in the game flying the Spit Vc.

Interesting to note how many more IXs are starting to show up now that those same guys are flying the IX as their replacement for the old Spit Vc.

It isn't the "BEST" killer in the game.  You point out how many folks fly it.  That explains the large number of kills.  By the percentages it doesn't kill as well as other birds that aren't flown as much but have a higher percentage of kills per sortie.

As for complaining if we only had the 43 LFIX.  Remember it was folks like myself who like the Spit that suggested taking the Spit V back to 41 numbers.  My wish for the LFIX was because that was the predominant variant for the Spit IX.  The Merlin 66/266 birds were used most often as the airwar was a tac air war from 43 on and the fight was lower.  AH is a tac airwar so a high alt Spit made little sense.

I said it loud and clear at the time when folks were asking for 4 20mms on the Spit because it could carry them, that it would be a mistake because in reality they didn't carry them outside of one Spit Vc ground attack squadron in Italy and no one would want the performance drop from the Vokes filter and extra guns anyway.  It was not an air to air bird at that point.

If you want to take out the 45 Spit 16 and change the Spit IX to the LFIX, go for it.  I don't care.  I like the VIII as it covers the Pac and MTO well but I could live without it.  The Spit LFIX could cover for em all.

In the end though it appears the argument is you have a Spit with armament you don't like along with the performance of the Merlin 60 series Spits.  Fine.  Kill the E wing.  I don't care.  Leave it an LFIX with a Univeral wing with 2 20mm and 4 303.

As for the 16 is better then 14 bit.  OK I'll let it go.  It's stuck with me though since I've heard it asked in the arena a number of times  when guys thought the 16 must be more 'uber' then the 14 because of the higher number.

[Krusty]

Fair enough, on hearing players actually say the 16 ws better because it was a higher number, but I'd be more inclined to believe that was joking, or playing a prank on somebody.

If I may digress a little on the reasons the 16 "is a beast"....

I was in the air winging with some players that specialize in spit flying (71 RAF squadron, Knights) and somebody said it best after not flying the 16 in a while then taking it up for a spit16 mission. I'll paraphrase "damn! this 16 rolls like a son of a b****!" and he's right. The roll rate greatly increases manuverability. Somebody did turn tests in AH and found the spit16 was only a few feet off in turn radius compared to the spit8. Wingtips do almost nothing between the way AH has them modeled.

However, the super-human roll rate allows them to jink and break and pull manuvers that the 8/9 cannot, and as for turning -- it's nearly identical, so if you have 2 planes that flat turn the same, but 1 can roll 3x better than the other, can change its lift on a hair's notice, that one will win.

The roll rate, the turn rate equal to the other "best spits" (better than the 14, as well), and MG firepower 50% stronger than the next closest spit, it adds up. And that's only when comparing to the next closest spits! Compared to almost every other plane in the game -- fuhgeddaboudit!.

I've flown it. Hell I've flown it too much. I had to cut back (too damn easy! Was getting 7 kill sorties!). I know what it's capable of, even though I'm not the best stick.

So just saying "Oh this boost is low, these guns are a small difference" okay, fine, but you have to look at the entire package, as its modeled in AH right now.

The entire package, as its modeled right now, is the best spit in the game, the best dogfighter in the game, and the only weakness it has is top speed -- which is easily exceeded for long periods of time after very shallow dives. It's as close as you're going to get to the perfect plane, right now, and it's unperked. That's the "total package", basically.

[Kev367th]

Wingtips - Due to the redesign for the 'e' wing it was stiffer than previous wings.
This included a revised main spar and the internals for the hard points.

This meant that although clipped it was only marginally worse in turn than a full span 'c' wing.

So to say wingtips do nothing is misleading, the main change was the 'e' wing design.
I would imagine a full span LF IXe would/should turn a lot better than the XVI and the VIII.

As for the XIV vs XVI numbers thing - I'll guess if the XIV were unperked most newbies would still use the XVI as the number is higher.

Your XIV vs XVI turn radius has a flaw -
Again for one minute think of the XVI as a 1944 LF IXe, that way they are identical in all aspects.
Why would you be surprised an LF IXe standard or clipped wings could outurn a F XIVe?

Makes me wish that it had been brought in as LF IXe.

Not going into the perk it debate, you know my feelings.

[Pongo]

[Squire]

IMHO it should be redesignated Spitfire LF IX in AH2 (since its identical to a late IXe). The XVI handle does nothing but cause confusion, and has since it was announced. All you need to do is view the posts and hear the talk about in on the various channels.

[Charge]

"those clipped wings though are a liability at lower speeds, especially at stall speeds."

Actually, I think that the clipped wing probably had better stall characteristics than the full span wing.

***

"I would imagine a full span LF IXe would/should turn a lot better than the XVI and the VIII."

A lot better? How does a stiffer wing assist in turning "a lot"?
AFAIK building those hard-points itself requires a stronger wing structure, again resulting in stiffer wing and the roll rate gets better, aileron reversal happens in faster speed than previously and high speed stall characteristics are better because the wing does not flex uncontrollably in turns.

How much better is it then? Well how much heavier was the new wing?
Was there a noticeable weight increase in e-wing Spits?

-C+

[justin_g]

Quote from "Report on Seafire Deck Landing", written by Jeffrey Quill in Feb '44 for the FAA.

Removal of the wing tips produces tangible advantages in:-
(1) Aileron control.
(2) Hangar stowage.
(3) A possible slight advantage in reduction of float.

The disadvantages consequent upon their removal are as follows:
(1) Increased landing speed.
(2) Aggravation of the root stall (particularly in steep turns).
(3) Loss in take-off performance.
(4) Loss in rate of climb.

Spitfire IX, XI, XVI Pilot's Notes state that stalling speeds with clipped wings are 3-6mph higher. Also the "rear view" fuselage(bubble canopy) adds 5mph to stall speed, and gives the pilot less warning of approaching stall(buffeting).