Next VVS fighter?

[Nashwan]

We have a 1942 Spit IX with the wrong armament options. Instead of 2 20mm and 2 .5 it should have the option of 4 20mm. It doesn't have any of the refinements that were added to 1944 Spit IXs like rear fuselage fuel tank, +25lb boost etc. It also has the worst climb rate of any of the Spit IX variants.
The Spit VIII was also used in Italy, and several hundred were used in NW Europe from Jan 44. Of course they were re engined with a Griffon and called Spit XIV  

[mx22]

Nash,

4 20mm cannons were rare on SpitfireIX. Both early and late models. 2 20mm and 2 50s was the most common loadout for the plane.

mx22

[Nashwan]

It was rare, but the plane was designed with it as an option.
The 109F and G were designed for 1 cannon and 2 mgs. When they had to intercept heavy bombers they were modified by hanging guns under the wing. If the RAF had had to intercept heavy bombers, as they do in AH, then more Spits would have been fitted with that 4 20mm option.
I would gladly put up with the extra 40kg weight penalty to have a virtual doubling of the armament.

[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 07-14-2000).]

[mx22]

As it stands now, I don't want to see 4x20mm on Spitfire. Not because it will unbalance arena (which I doubt), but simply because it was such a rare thing. The least we have of those uncommon loadouts on planes, the least chance we see people asking for adding some unusual/testing weapons. We have enough of wars with which plane to model, let's not start another one.
In addition, that loadout won't add anything significant to RAF arsenal, SpitIX is outdated in MA, and there is no reason to beef it up just to make it "more competative".

mx22

[juzz]

No 4x20mm on a Spitfire unless its a Mk VC, 21 or 22.

And now, where's that La-7 with three B-20?

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 07-14-2000).]