Author Topic: Unperk the Spitfire Mk XIV (Read 8057 times)

Squire · « **Reply #75 on:** February 14, 2008, 08:37:47 PM »

What Lusche said. My point stands either way. There is no reason to perk it based on other non perked a/c specs, or any other reason.

The109K-4 is faster than a 109G-14, how about we slap 15 perks on that in the next update, sound good? I can use all your arguments.

uberslet · « **Reply #76 on:** February 14, 2008, 08:58:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
I don't think a perk fighter that is hardly used and cannot maintain a kill/death ratio higher than all free fighters should be perked.

Likewise, I don't think a perk fighter that is just over a 2 to 1 kill/death ratio should be very expensive. The F4U-4 should be a budget perk plane. I think the Tempest, Me262, Me163 and F4U-1C are priced where they should be. F4U-4 should be cheaper and Spitfire Mk XIV should be free.

Karnak, your right, the Temp, 262, 163, and chog r right, -4 should be less, but 14 shouldnt be perked. with this new update coming up next week or when ever it is we getting the 39, they should at least do sumthin about the perk price on the -4 and spit 14

moot · « **Reply #77 on:** February 14, 2008, 09:57:33 PM »

Lusche I'm not going to derail the thread.. We can discuss it in another if you want, but I'm pretty sure none of those planes can compare with the 152 in a high speed fight. Especialy not above 30k or so.
All their other strengths are void when they can't be used, just as against the 262's speed despite the jet having one of the worst turning/rolling/acceleration.

Squire the date of introduction in WWII is irrelevent in the MA.

angelsandair · « **Reply #78 on:** February 14, 2008, 10:01:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AAolds
Im a dedicated SpitXiV flyer and I dont see any need to remove the perk on it, why not just perk the LA7, spit16 and Niki.

Cuz the N1k2 lacks speed and turning ability.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #79 on:** February 14, 2008, 10:01:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Lusche I'm not going to derail the thread.. We can discuss it in another if you want, but I'm pretty sure none of those planes can compare with the 152 in a high speed fight. Especialy not above 30k or so.
All their other strengths are void when they can't be used, just as against the 262's speed despite the jet having one of the worst turning/rolling/acceleration.

Squire the date of introduction in WWII is irrelevent in the MA.

Yes and no. If you are a Luftwaffe fan, all the birds are available. If you are an RAF fan, the two latewar birds, the Temp and Spit XIV are not.

Again I'm of the unperk em all crowd and let folks fly what they want so it doesn't really affect me. But the XIV just doesn't seem like one that needs the perks. I'd rather see it used.

Many have pointed out, that folks don't know how to fly it as they think it should fly like a Merlin Spit. But the LW guys get to jump from the A8 to the D9 or Ta152 without penalty. Seems like the RAF fans should have the same option.

Lusche · « **Reply #80 on:** February 14, 2008, 10:12:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Lusche I'm not going to derail the thread.. We can discuss it in another if you want, but I'm pretty sure none of those planes can compare with the 152 in a high speed fight. Especialy not above 30k or so.
.

I wouldn't argue that.. but how many fights happen up there?

And down low the Ta isn't as dangerous overall as other, and rightfully perked planes thus it's non-perk status. It's K/D reflects it. Call it "misuse" of its qualities, but the k/d (which is currently massively distorted by your sorties btw

) reflects the MA realities. Just like the LA-7 has a K/D way below it's theoretical capabilites - it's a result of the specific MA environment in a broader sense. Just like it is with the 14.
Again: Perk status should be based on actual impact. In my opinion, based on actual data, the 14 is far from having any specific impact. Usage is low, success is low, both pale in comparison to other LW rides and not only the perked ones.

Widewing · « **Reply #81 on:** February 14, 2008, 10:36:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
I just tested this offline using the Spitfire Mk XIV, Spitfire Mk VIII and Mosquito Mk VI, all at 50% fuel. The Spitfire Mk XIV easily sheds its wings. The Mk VIII creaked a bit, but didn't lose anything. The Mosquito didn't even creak. The Spitfires should be able to take as many Gs as the Mosquito, if not slightly more.

I tested them tonight too. What I found is that the SpitVII, SpitXIV and SpitXVI will all break wings at 570 mph @ 6.5g. In contrast, the SpitIX does not do so. It requires 7g to break a wing at that speed. It's simply a function of weight. The heavier aircraft will impart greater load at any specific g loading. The greater the weight, the lower the g value required to attain a load that results in failure.

On the other hand, I can't break an F6F-5 under the same speed and g loading.

My regards,

Widewing

Karnak · « **Reply #82 on:** February 14, 2008, 11:29:33 PM »

I pulled into the turn at 450mph. 570mph would have ripped the control surfaces off of the Mosquito in my test.

I thought the Spits were rated for more than 7 Gs though.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #83 on:** February 15, 2008, 01:02:33 AM »

Widewing, I don't really want to trouble you, but do you have the wing-loading data for the spits' you tested? I'd just like to see them to compare, for future reference.

And if you see Oldman, hit him up about Spit's shedding wings, he had a good view of me loosing them in a XIV in the AvA.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #84 on:** February 15, 2008, 01:37:14 AM »

A careless wobble of the stick will tear the wings off at speeds below 400. I have done this in a XVI on several occasions, and caught one on film. Pulled too hard for a second, the accelerometer pegged, wings flew off, end of sortie.

I'm guessing that's what happened to you as well.

moot · « **Reply #85 on:** February 15, 2008, 01:44:10 AM »

I've done it below 400... Possibly as low as 350 or so. I pulled into a normal duel merge and the wings were off before the nose got to 45deg above the horizon.

Quote

Originally posted by Lusche
Call it "misuse" of its qualities, but the k/d (which is currently massively distorted by your sorties btw )

Kev367th · « **Reply #86 on:** February 15, 2008, 04:54:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lusche
I wouldn't argue that.. but how many fights happen up there?

And down low the Ta isn't as dangerous overall as other, and rightfully perked planes thus it's non-perk status. It's K/D reflects it. Call it "misuse" of its qualities, but the k/d (which is currently massively distorted by your sorties btw ) reflects the MA realities. Just like the LA-7 has a K/D way below it's theoretical capabilites - it's a result of the specific MA environment in a broader sense. Just like it is with the 14.
Again: Perk status should be based on actual impact. In my opinion, based on actual data, the 14 is far from having any specific impact. Usage is low, success is low, both pale in comparison to other LW rides and not only the perked ones.

Which makes total sense.

XIV - optimised for med to high alts is nothing stellar in the MA.

I can only imagine that was the reason the Ta-152 was unperked, and the P-47N was introduced unperked.
Both are high alt performers and nothing exceptional down low.

Still think the majority would stick with the XVI even with an unperked XIV.

Just seems that as Dan said the RAF are left out in the cold when it comes to getting any sort of high performing plane (as in the La-7, 190D9, Pony D etc) free.
In fact out of the 3 major planesets the RAF is the only one not to have a true 1945 bird!!!!

Charge · « **Reply #87 on:** February 15, 2008, 07:48:42 AM »

I can't see a reason to keep XIV perked either.

-C+

Charge · « **Reply #88 on:** February 15, 2008, 08:15:11 AM »

"What I found is that the SpitVII, SpitXIV and SpitXVI will all break wings at 570 mph @ 6.5g. In contrast, the SpitIX does not do so. It requires 7g to break a wing at that speed. It's simply a function of weight. The heavier aircraft will impart greater load at any specific g loading. The greater the weight, the lower the g value required to attain a load that results in failure.

On the other hand, I can't break an F6F-5 under the same speed and g loading."

F6F had a slightly thicker profile when compared to relative thickness of Spitfire's wing.

F6F: NACA 23015.6 / NACA 23009
Spit: NACA 2213 / NACA 2209.4

It is possible that the wing of F6F needed to be somewhat stiffer since the landing gear is further in the wings and they need to endure carrier landings with weight of 12,000 lbs where as the Spit had the landing gear attached nearer to fuselage with weight of 8,000 lbs and less wingloading so the structure could have been slightly lighter.

190s had small stiff wings and a reputation of being able to pull tremendous amounts of Gs without wing failures and even some Ta's still had the shorter wing. The G loading may build up quite abruptly along the wing span being heaviest a the tip, and of course if it does not bend it breaks and that is why I think the Ta with long wings surely had smaller load limit than those of the short span wings.

I think it is strange if the Spit loses a wing totally since the spar was designed to endure lots of dynamic load without breaking so the designers knew that the large wing would be under tremendous loads in high speed maneuvers. The drawback is that the tubular spar structure is quite heavy so AFAIK it did not expand all the way to the tip. Did the Spits IRL really shred off all the wing or just parts of it?

-C+

Gabriel · « **Reply #89 on:** February 15, 2008, 09:44:00 AM »

Well - I've read that the Spit XIV has never been unperked.

So basically these are all theories about what would happen. Why not unperk and just see what happens in reality. If 50% of all planes are now Spit XIVs and the arena blows up, could always reperk.