Spitfires in tour 110: Late war

[Crash Orange]

Agreed.  The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.

Why is that? What's wrong with flying Spits?

I just don't get the Spit hate-on some folks are wrapped up in. I love the Spitfire; always have ever since seeing The Battle of Britain in the theater when I was four years old. To my eye it's the most beautiful piece of machinery ever devised by man, the 20th century equivalent of a champion thoroughbred. If it hadn't been as good as it was at what it, did its existence would still be justified for aesthetic reasons alone. If it performed badly in AH2 I'd still fly it at least some of the time because, hey, it's a Spit.

Now, I don't expect others to share that opinion. Personally, I think the 109K4 is ugly as sin (although still kinda cool looking) and impractical as hell, mostly because of the horrible cockpit views and the relative difficulty of hitting a moving target with its cannon. Same for the Ki-84. But they're fine planes and if someone else prefers to fly them, I don't see anything wrong with them or their choice. I'm not going to call them dweebs for having different aesthetic preferences or flying styles.  

[Anaxogoras]

Can't disagree more. The -1C does almost everything better than the Spit 16 except climb and accelerate. It turns better, has more firepower, can take lots more damage, can carry decent ordnance, has better range, zoom climbs like crazy and has a higher top speed.

It takes almost 18 seconds for the F4U-1C to complete a 360 degree sustained turned, the XVI does it in under 16 seconds.

The F4U-1 series does not out-zoom the XVI... I have tested it, and BnZs can confirm the results.  It's a big myth that our heavier aircraft out-zoom the light aircraft with better power-loading.

At 10k ft the XVI is 4mph faster than the F4U-1C.

A 1k lb bombload is not "decent ordinance?"

[Anaxogoras]

I just don't get the Spit hate-on some folks are wrapped up in. I love the Spitfire; always have ever since seeing The Battle of Britain in the theater when I was four years old. To my eye it's the most beautiful piece of machinery ever devised by man, the 20th century equivalent of a champion thoroughbred. If it hadn't been as good as it was at what it, did its existence would still be justified for aesthetic reasons alone. If it performed badly in AH2 I'd still fly it at least some of the time because, hey, it's a Spit.

It looks like a Mazda Miata to me, which everyone knows is a girl's car.

[Karnak]

Agreed.  The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.

- oldman

Some people like Spitfires for their rather significant role in WWII history.

[Crash Orange]

It looks like a Mazda Miata to me, which everyone knows is a girl's car.

You know, I do kinda see the resemblance. But only if you take the wings off the Spit.

As for the F4U-1C: guns, guns, ammo, and ammo. The .50 cals beat .303s but I rarely seem to do enough damage with them to count, except against the most fragile planes. (Granted, gunnery is my worst skill in this game.) Against bombers there's no comparison.

If there was a Spit with the range and firepower of the C-hog I'd fly nothing else until I got very bored.

Hmmm. Time to quit typing and go fly Spits and Hogs.  

[BnZs]

You are more patient than me when people argue with you from a position of ignorance.

It takes almost 18 seconds for the F4U-1C to complete a 360 degree sustained turned, the XVI does it in under 16 seconds.

The F4U-1 series does not out-zoom the XVI... I have tested it, and BnZs can confirm the results.  It's a big myth that our heavier aircraft out-zoom the light aircraft with better power-loading.

At 10k ft the XVI is 4mph faster than the F4U-1C.

A 1k lb bombload is not "decent ordinance?"

[BnZs]

Some people like Spitfires for their rather significant role in WWII history.

I can't fault you for that...of course the far and away most produced variant was the SpitIX.

The SpitIX is a gentle, forgiving plane for the novices. More gentle than the XVI. The SpitIX still has good energy performance and turn performance...just not enough performance to be double-superior to half the plane set. It also has the coolest skins.

What if I told you I liked the Hawker Tempest for its history? When you agree that it needs to be unperked?

[Karnak]

I can't fault you for that...of course the far and away most produced variant was the SpitIX.

The SpitIX is a gentle, forgiving plane for the novices. More gentle than the XVI. The SpitIX still has good energy performance and turn performance...just not enough performance to be double-superior to half the plane set. It also has the coolest skins.

The most produced specific Spitfire was the Mk Vb.  The most produced mark overall was the Mk IX, with the majority of those being LF.Mk IXs powered by Merlin 66s, just like our Mk VIII and Mk XVI.  There were less than 500 Spitfire F.Mk IXs powered by Merlin 61s like in AH.  So, if you want the closest approximation of the most common wartime Spitfires in AH you'd want to take the Spitfire Mk Vb, Spitfire Mk VIII or Spitfire Mk XVI.

What if I told you I liked the Hawker Tempest for its history? When you agree that it needs to be unperked?

No, but I would agree that you shouldn't be called a pansie or have your sexual orientation questioned because you like the Tempest.

[BnZs]

No, but I would agree that you shouldn't be called a pansie or have your sexual orientation questioned because you like the Tempest.

I don't go in for that sort of thing.

I just find it a bit disingenuous how people will not admit what a very, very good airplane the XVI is. I think I shall try to compile a list of the planes it is double-superior to at typical MA altitude, and a list of airplanes which are double superior to it, and see how that stacks up.

[Karnak]

The Spitfire Mk XVI has three things it is moderate at, speed, cockpit view, and payload and two things it is weak at, range and durability.  It is excellent in all other categories.

It is in many ways built for an MA style environment and so it is excellent there.  It is not imbalancing though, just very good.

[JimmyC]

"I know I fell in love with her the moment I was introduced that summer day in 1938. I was captivated by her sheer beauty; she was slimly built with a beautifully proportioned body and graceful curves just where they should be"  The Rt. Hon. The Lord Balfour of Inchrye PC, MC  (Under Secretary of State for Air 1938-1944)

[Anaxogoras]

The Spitfire Mk XVI has three things it is moderate at, speed, cockpit view, and payload and two things it is weak at, range and durability.  It is excellent in all other categories.

It is in many ways built for an MA style environment and so it is excellent there.  It is not imbalancing though, just very good.

You must be talking about deflection shooting when you say its cockpit visibility is moderate?  Otherwise, it has one of the most perspicacious cockpits in the game.

I am yet to hear a definition for "unbalancing" in AH.

You are more patient than me when people argue with you from a position of ignorance.

Philosopher's training. 

[BaldEagl]

<--------------

Agreed.  The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.

- oldman

Whatca' gonna do about it?  Huh?

You'd rather I flew Tempests all the time instead?

[Bruv119]

dont know where you are coming from with that comment oldman. 

if a long term player was flying a Spit so what???   

What makes me so  about these anti spit threads is all of the haters thinking spit drivers can't fly anything else and use that as an excuse for their obvious lack of ACM ability to be able to defeat it.

If you can fly a spit at total pwnage level (see Kazaa)  then you have no place to comment on who should or shouldnt be flying it.

Good day to you sir!

[Guppy35]

I can't fault you for that...of course the far and away most produced variant was the SpitIX.

The SpitIX is a gentle, forgiving plane for the novices. More gentle than the XVI. The SpitIX still has good energy performance and turn performance...just not enough performance to be double-superior to half the plane set. It also has the coolest skins.

What if I told you I liked the Hawker Tempest for its history? When you agree that it needs to be unperked?

You do understand that the most produced Spitfire IX was the LFIX with the Merlin 66, and that the Spitfire XVI is nothing more then a Spit IX with an American Packard Merlin 266 which is the same engine?  Do you think folks would say anything if HTC had called the Spitfire LFXVIe that we have in game, a Spitfire LFIXe instead?

There is no difference between the two outside of the engine manufacturer.  Put a Packard Merlin 266 in a Spit IX and it becomes a Spitfire XVI and  if a Rolls Merlin 66 is put in a Spitfire XVI it becomes a Spitfire IX.  They came off the same production lines and the only way to really tell the difference is a serial number or checking the engine data plate.

The AH Mk IX is the early Merlin 61 version.  As I said the largest number of IXs produced were LFIXs with Merlin 66s rated for low to medium alt work just like the Merlin 266 LFXVI.  The E wing was standard when the XVI was coming off the line, and the IXs coming off the line were also getting E wings at the time.  They were both coming off the line with clipped wings at that point too as the airwar was lower and the increased roll rate was an advantage.