Spit XIV

[BnZs]

Anax, pull a Late-war plane at random out of your hat. I can guarantee you that 99% of the time, if it can't maneuver on fairly equal terms with a SpitXVI, it will be at least as fast or faster. The same cannot be said for the Lala or the SpitXIV.

You must understand of course, that as far as I'm concerned HTC *could* perk the SpitXVI lightly, 3-5, about the same I'd assign to the La-7. And lower the SpitXIV's price to the same amount, perhaps.

[Furball]

I find that the XIV is crippled by strange torque effect - it is difficult to hit those rudder snapshots in it because it skews in a strange way.

I don't think the in game XIV turns as well as it should: -

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX
13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

Range & Endurance
14. The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.

Speeds
15. At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

Search View and Rear View
20. The search view from the pilot's cockpit is good; the longer nose of the aircraft interferes with the all-round visibility, which remains the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Rear View is similar.

Sighting View and Fire Power
21. The sighting view is slightly better being 4 deg (140 m.p.h.) as against 3 1/3 deg. The two bulges at the side cause little restriction. The firepower is identical with the Spitfire IX.

Armour
22. As for the Spitfire IX

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.

BRIEF TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TEMPEST V

Range and Endurance
24. Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of both aircraft. (3150 revs. +4 1/2 lb. boost Tempest, 2400 revs. +7 lb. boost Spitfire XIV).

24A. The best heights of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:-

The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft. From 10,000 - 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at about 300 I.A.S. Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high crusing speed and no comparisons can be made with the Spitfire XIV which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.
These comparisons remain the same with the full fuel loads at present available (2 x 45 gall. long range tank Tempest, 1 x 90 gall. longe range tank Spitfire).

Maximum Speed
25. From 0 - 10,000 feet the Tempest V is 20 mph. faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is then little to choose until 22,000 feet, when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph. faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 feet as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 feet.

Maximum Climb
26. The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed thoughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached then, of course, the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch up and pull ahead.

Dive
27. The Tempest V gains on the Spitfire XIV.

Turning Circle
28. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest.

Rate of Roll
29. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph., but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph.

Conclusions
30. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling techique in combat. For this reason Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIVs, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would never be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is the better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV the better above that height.

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH MUSTANG III

Radius of Action
31. Without a long range tank, the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. With a 90 gallon long-range tank it has about half the range of the Mustang III fitted with 2 x 62 1/2 gallon long range tanks.

Maximum Speed
32. The maximum speed are practically identical.

Maximum Climb
33. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

Dive
34. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly.

Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XIV is better.

Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.

Conclusion
37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.

[Karnak]

You must understand of course, that as far as I'm concerned HTC *could* perk the SpitXVI lightly, 3-5, about the same I'd assign to the La-7. And lower the SpitXIV's price to the same amount, perhaps.

Ah yes, the old classic "Perk any British Fighter that entered service later than 1943" argument.  Haven't seen one of those recently.

[BnZs]

And I don't see any way how jugs could be made "obsolete" by a unperked 14 - we already have a lot of planes both faster as well as more maneuverable than the Jugs, so they should have been long obsolete by now

SpitXIV takes the Jug's bailiwick, high altitude, away from it. Simple as that.

Almost nothing more maneuverable than a P-47N is both faster and can dive with it. The La-7 is perhaps the biggest threat, but a light Jug is not so inferior in maneuverability that an isolated Lala is an insurmountable obstacle. However, if all the Jugs are already driven down on the deck by SpitXIVs that can reach 15K in ~3.5 minutes and are otherwise totally superior? 

Handling changes to the Lala? Not sure that is the explanation. Fads come and go. Doesn't seem so bad to me. Still hangs on its prop straight up to absurdity, without the torque problems you'd expect from a huge radial in a tiny airframe.

[BnZs]

Ah yes, the old classic "Perk any British Fighter that entered service later than 1943" argument.  Haven't seen one of those recently.

Its all about the performance Karnak. Do you honestly think I'm arguing that more formidable fighters should carry higher prices because I hate the British? 

[Karnak]

Its all about the performance Karnak. Do you honestly think I'm arguing that more formidable fighters should carry higher prices because I hate the British? 

Given the effect those fighters have on the game (no more than some other non-British fighters) and their complete performance characteristics (great speed and climb ruined by handling issues in the case of the Mk XIV) it certainly appears so.

You guys keep focusing on the raw numbers of the Mk XIV, and it does look really good on paper.  Then you fly it and it sucks.  You are fighting the airplane as much as the enemy.  Is it extremely good in the hands of skilled player?  Yes.  So are the Bf109K-4, Ki-84, Fw190D-9, La-7, Typhoon Mk Ib, N1K2-J, P-51D, F4U-1A, Spitfire Mk XVI and so on.  Is it extremely good in the hands of an average or new player?  Not nearly as good as the La-7, N1K2-J, Spitfire Mk XVI.  Probably not even as good as the Ki-84 and F4U-1A, both of which have "quirks" to them that need to be learned.

It also has cripplingly short range.

[Kweassa]

SpitXIV takes the Jug's bailiwick, high altitude, away from it. Simple as that.

Almost nothing more maneuverable than a P-47N is both faster and can dive with it. The La-7 is perhaps the biggest threat, but a light Jug is not so inferior in maneuverability that an isolated Lala is an insurmountable obstacle. However, if all the Jugs are already driven down on the deck by SpitXIVs that can reach 15K in ~3.5 minutes and are otherwise totally superior? 

Handling changes to the Lala? Not sure that is the explanation. Fads come and go. Doesn't seem so bad to me. Still hangs on its prop straight up to absurdity, without the torque problems you'd expect from a huge radial in a tiny airframe.

Summary:

"British Spit14s are better than American P-47N. So they should be perked"


.. good argument.


Not.

[thrila]

bnzs, you want to perk the spit14 because it's good at high alt? where almost none of the fighting takes place.  The p47N is faster than the spit14 above 15k, the jug still has options if it wants a high alt fight.

The la7 has a marginally smaller turning circle than the spit14 according to gonzo's charts, even without flaps- oh, but you want to perk that too.   Essentially a perk plane has an unperked rival that can outrun and out-turn it at standard MA altitudes, why would anyone want to use perks to fly it.  I am not convinced that the spit14 vs 109K match up is such a walkover as you believe it is, i believe once the fight goes slow the 109K will dominate the spit14.

[Bronk]

Handling changes to the Lala?

When was this?

[BnZs]

Summary:

"British Spit14s are better than American P-47N. So they should be perked"


.. good argument.


Not.

When you state the argument correctly, it is in fact a good argument.

This is the argument stated correctly:

"When X plane has nearly *every* advantage over dozens LW airplane types, it should probably be perked in the LW MA."

[Bronk]

If we had a Mk XII..... the thing was designed for AH combat alts, perk it.  The XIV not so much.

[BnZs]

The la7 has a marginally smaller turning circle than the spit14 according to gonzo's charts, even without flaps- oh, but you want to perk that too.   Essentially a perk plane has an unperked rival that can outrun and out-turn it at standard MA altitudes, why would anyone want to use perks to fly it? 

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that there is ONE unperked plane that likely should be perked has no bearing on whether or not another plane should be perked. The La-7 is a unique oddity in terms of its capabilities and lack of a perk price, though one must factor in the shortest range in the game.

[Karnak]

"When X plane has nearly *every* advantage over dozens LW airplane types, it should probably be perked in the LW MA."

Which the Spit XIV does not.

Therefore Kweassa's statement is true.

You continue to focus on its paper numbers and ignore its actual performance.

[splitatom]

it has the lowest kd of any of the perked planes this year if you look at what luche looked up

[BnZs]

Which the Spit XIV does not.

Therefore Kweassa's statement is true.

You continue to focus on its paper numbers and ignore its actual performance.

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.