Spit XIV

[715]

I tried it and it wiggles QUITE a bit.  For no particular reason.  It is amazingly unstable.  I even bounced a 190 who never saw me yet I did not even get to fire as I was so surprised at how the Spit XIV appeared to go in ever direction except the one I was pointing to.  It's almost like the controls are celebrating "Opposite Day".

Can someone explain the aerodynamic justification for this squirreliness?  Especially given the report posted above about the handling of the real Spit XIV being about the same as the real Spit IX.

How about this: keep the small perk but fix the squirreliness?

[Anaxogoras]

Can someone explain the aerodynamic justification for this squirreliness?  Especially given the report posted above about the handling of the real Spit XIV being about the same as the real Spit IX.

It said they had the same turning circle, not the same handling.  The answer you seek is pretty obvious: an extra ~1k lbs of weight, mostly in the nose.

[BnZs]

The only justification I can think of is the 5 bladed prop. The extra mass would add to gyroscopic effects, kind of like the rotary engines on WWI biplanes.  These effects may be especially hard to deal with when you are used to the airplane's engine turning in the other direction.

But you are correct 715, that report does seem to also imply that the XIV's handling traits are just as gentle as the IX, except on the ground.

[Anaxogoras]

The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

[BnZs]

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

[thrila]

Yet BaldEagle has taken the thing out and proven its performance is not just on paper...the only valid argument I've heard against the SpitXIV is that it wiggles a bit while maneuvering. Probably not enough to save anything from those Hispanos.

Seriously? Baldeagl scoring 25 victories as proof that the spit14 has none of the mentioned issues, whilst in his own words "never heard a stall buzzer or hit the buffet" .  I could do that in the old mossie and never discover it's stall characteristics. It's problems are more than just a small wiggle, take one up in the DA and try and do some turn or stall fighting.

[Lusche]

Yet BaldEagle has taken the thing out and proven its performance is not just on paper

How has he proven that? By getting X number of kills in the LW MA? That's saying nothing about any handling characteristics, especially when flying flying so far away from the edges of performace that he never heard the stall buzzer.

[BnZs]

Seriously? Baldeagl scoring 25 victories as proof that the spit14 has none of the mentioned issues, whilst in his own words "never heard a stall buzzer or hit the buffet" .  I could do that in the old mossie and never discover it's stall characteristics. It's problems are more than just a small wiggle, take one up in the DA and try and do some turn or stall fighting.

You don't chase down Typhs, P-51s, or "pace" D9s in a Mossie. Nor do you E-fight with nearly 5K a minute in climb rate to work with....

[Kweassa]

You don't chase down Typhs, P-51s, or "pace" D9s in a Mossie. Nor do you E-fight with nearly 5K a minute in climb rate to work with....

Which is, yet again, irrelevant to the max.

One can at least try and understand the irrelevance of a single pilot's anecdotal trial of a certain plane doesn't add up to much against the general consensus formed by numerous other pilots who've been dedicated to the plane for years.


Its like me flying a P-51D and arguing nothing has changed with the flaps.

Like, how sensitive would I be to the degree of performance change in a P-51 with flaps out - a plane I rarely, if ever, fly - and much less fly it well enough to the extent to actually feel a drastic change between the current and previous versions in the first place?


...

Besides, none of this in the first place, again, has any relevance to the matter at hand. You don't perk planes for their individual performance. You perk it on a relative scale, according to the impact it might have in the MA. And whatever impact the Spit14 may have in the MA, it is already done by other planes of its peers, which already have been roaming free in the skies of AH unperked.

[simshell]

faster spitfires in the main

that sounds like a nightmare

it may turn worse and handle worse, be a bit more unstable

but its still a spitfire


and just like a well flown P38, P51, 109

 a well flown Spitfire can be a scary thing to face

[Warspawn]

*shrug* I still feel the C-Hog and Spit XIV should be unperked, and the LA-7 perked.  The arena's changed a bit since the days when the C-hog and Spit XIV were introduced.

[Lusche]

*shrug* I still feel the C-Hog and Spit XIV should be unperked, and the LA-7 perked.  The arena's changed a bit since the days when the C-hog and Spit XIV were introduced.

Yes times have changed.. so why should the La-7 be perked when it's being flown MUCh less than ever before and has a much lower K/D at the same time? Does it mediocre effect on gameplay really has an "unbalancing effect"?

[Warspawn]

Yes times have changed..  Does it mediocre effect on gameplay really has an "unbalancing effect"?

Mostly I feel that the fastest low-alt plane with 3-cannons deserves a small perk to deter suicide-pork 'n' augers, as well as to encourage some of the youth to take another plane from time to time, lol...   The head-on spray 'n' pray from them may get a bit less annoying if there was a 5-perk cost associated with the LA-7 / 3-cannon version. 

[B4Buster]

No way should the C-Hog be unperked. F4Us will turn with anything if flown right, and 4 20mms aren't forgiving

[Warspawn]

The C-hog is DEAD meat when confronted with a competent pilot co-alt/co-energy by an LA-7 or Spit XVI.  Heck, a well-flown Lightning or Ki-84 will toast it.