Myth: SpitXVI is "slow"

[Kazaa]

Having the option for 150 octane fuel would really spice things up the LWM arenas. The Spitfire wouldn’t be the only plane to benefit either.

Quote from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

“RAF Mustang units tasked with defending against the V-1 were modified to operated at +25 lbs./sq.in. - the equivalent of 80" Hg. 21 22   On 24 August 1944, by which time the V-1 threat had subsided, the Ministry of Aircraft Production directed Rolls Royce: "all Packard Merlin V.1650-7 engines to be modified to operate at 25 lbs. boost". 23   Raising the WER rating from 67" Hg to 80" Hg increased Sea Level speed by 30 mph. 24  On 18 September 1944 ADGB noted, that with respect to the Mustang III/Packard Merlin 1650-7, "A total of over 7,000 hours have been flown at a maximum boost pressure of + 25 lbs./sq. in.". 25   The RAF's Mustang Pilot's Notes gives the Combat Engine Limitation as "81 ins. boost for 5 minutes when using 150 grade fuel". 26   Combat Reports show +25 lbs was used operationally over the continent by UK based Mustangs of ADGB. 27”

I’m sure our history buffs could continue the list…

[Karnak]

BnZ,

You are wrong to claim 70% because most of those aircraft are irrelevent relects in the LW environment.  You are playing a politicians game with statistics to make them look like they say what you want them to.  It is irrelevant that the Spit XVI is faster than a Hurri I, Bf109F-4 or P-40E as none of those should be, skill being equal, true contenders in a late war environment.

The Spitfire Mk XVI is not slow, and certainly in the mid range of speeds accelerates very, very well, but it is not faster than 70% of the relevant fighters.

Ultimately all of your talk is meaningless due to the single most important factor, and that is the impact on the actual game and in that place it is clearly, self evidently and beyond any reasonable argument, not imbalancing.


I will give you credit that you do not go into hysterics like Krusty, with claims of Spitfire XVI's pulling hard 180 degree turns and then accelerating to catch his boom and zoomer of choice down when he made no manuevers, but is magically never on film.


EDIT:

The thing Krusty ticked me off with in this thread was claiming I'd said other fighters walked away from the Mk XVI.  That is clearly not true, except for possibly some outliers like the Tempest.  What I had said is that if the two of you succeed in getting the Spitfires XVI and VIII perked (removed) the RAF or Spitfire fan would be limited to the Spitfire Mk IX, a mid 1942 fighter with a top deck speed of 321mph at WEP and a much poorer aceleration performance.  It is the Mk IX that I said most adversaries in the MA will walk away from.

Krusty also has a demonstratable anti-RAF bias.

[Saxman]

...and the guns are mediocre.

roadkill.

I'll take the Browning .50cal 6-pack over almost any gun package in the game except maybe the quad Hispanos.

[Kazaa]

BnZ,

You are wrong to claim 70% because most of those aircraft are irrelevent relects in the LW environment.  You are playing a politicians game with statistics to make them look like they say what you want them to.  It is irrelevant that the Spit XVI is faster than a Hurri I, Bf109F-4 or P-40E as none of those should be, skill being equal, true contenders in a late war environment.

The Spitfire Mk XVI is not slow, and certainly in the mid range of speeds accelerates very, very well, but it is not faster than 70% of the relevant fighters.

+1, I noticed that also.

[BnZs]

BnZ,

You are wrong to claim 70% because most of those aircraft are irrelevent relects in the LW environment.  You are playing a politicians game with statistics to make them look like they say what you want them to.  It is irrelevant that the Spit XVI is faster than a Hurri I, Bf109F-4 or P-40E as none of those should be, skill being equal, true contenders in a late war environment. The Spitfire Mk XVI is not slow, and certainly in the mid range of speeds accelerates very, very well, but it is not faster than 70% of the relevant fighters.

It is not in fact irrelevant, because the LW MA is not the "Late War Fighters Only MA". You cannot label a plane irrelevant in the LW MA simply because it is also available in EW or MW. Are the HurriIIC or P-38J irrelevant in LW? My point is that there are EW, many MW, and yes, even quite a few LW fighters that would be much more viable and useful in the MA *except for the near certainty of encountering SpitXVIs that dramatically out-class them in every way.* Therefore, you could potentially increase plane variety and fun for all by lightly perking this particular brand of Spitfire.

 In fact, what is "politico-like" is you deciding what fighters are "relevant" in a manner convenient to your own argument.

And when I compared the Spit16 to fighters that are available in LW only, interestingly, the point still stood.

Ultimately all of your talk is meaningless due to the single most important factor, and that is the impact on the actual game and in that place it is clearly, self evidently and beyond any reasonable argument, not imbalancing.

No, the undefined term "unbalancing" is what is meaningless. My contention is that the large numbers of SpitXVIs *do* have an impact on gameplay by reducing the viability of the very large number of fighters which can out-turn the really speedy b'n'zers and out-run the dedicated turners, but which are simply out-everythinged by the SpitXVI. No one has produced any answer to that that carries weight.

[Ack-Ack]

You are quite plainly incapable of coming up a logical rebuttal or of adding anything useful to the discussion. But instead of keeping your foul and useless little thoughts to yourself, to result to the safest of all yellow-bellied ploys, insult and lies on the internet. I weep for you.

Just callin' it like I see it.  You've utterly failed time and time again in your quest to get the Spitfire Mk XVI perked or show how it unbalances the game play at any level.  To me it just sounds like someone that has been beaten too many times by said plane and wants it perked.  No different than the myriad of threads about perking the LA-7.  Same whine, different plane.


ack-ack

[Motherland]

I think the most relevant comparison could be made if you order the aircraft by % usage and cut it off at 50% or 75%.

[BnZs]

Bullnoodles.

I'll take the Browning .50cal 6-pack over almost any gun package in the game except maybe the quad Hispanos.

Sax:
According to DokGonzo's, the Hispano cannon in AHII is approximately 3 times as lethal as the .50 cal. This is not a problem, as it conforms to what WWII tests seem to show. The Hispano 20mm is also the equal of the .50 in trajectory.

This means that the two Hispanos alone are as lethal as 6 .50s. Two Hispanos+2 .50s are equivalent in lethality to 8 .50 cal MGs, the dreaded "buzzsaws" of the P-47!!!.

6 .50s are indeed "middle of the road" as gun packages go in the game.

[Karnak]

People grabbing a Hurricane Mk I, A6M2 or Bf109E-4 in the LWA are taking an intentional handicap.  The Spit XVI is not relevant to that.  They are also a tiny minority of the aircraft encountered, so giving them an equal weight to the P-51D, La-7 (faster than the Mk XVI) and N1K2-J (slower than the Mk XVI) is false and done only to inflate your "number of fighters the Spit XVI is faster than" statistic.


The term "unbalancing" is anything but meaningless.  You only say it is meaningless because it doesn't match up with your request.

[Kazaa]

What I had said is that if the two of you succeed in getting the Spitfires XVI and VIII perked (removed) the RAF or Spitfire fan would be limited to the Spitfire Mk IX, a mid 1942 fighter with a top deck speed of 321mph at WEP and a much poorer aceleration performance.

Karnak, I’m not sure if the term “limited” is the right word to use here, if the XVI and VIII was lightly perked (1-5), then it’s still a viable ride for the mediocre player, however it's a different story for your average Joe. For a vet like myself, I wouldn't be affected at all.

[BnZs]

Just callin' it like I see it.  You've utterly failed time and time again in your quest to get the Spitfire Mk XVI perked or show how it unbalances the game play at any level.  To me it just sounds like someone that has been beaten too many times by said plane and wants it perked.  No different than the myriad of threads about perking the LA-7.  Same whine, different plane.


ack-ack

Flipping through my past tours, I found a K/D ratio against the SpitXVI varying anywhere from 1:1 to 15:1. So much for that little theory. Not that my personal record against the SpitXVI is relevant when discussing aircraft performance in the first place.

[BnZs]

The term "unbalancing" is anything but meaningless.  You only say it is meaningless because it doesn't match up with your request.

Define it in a logical and consistently applicable manner then!

[Karnak]

Define it in a logical and consistently applicable manner then!

The fighter is responsible for more than 15% of the kills in the MA in a given month.

[Karnak]

Karnak, I’m not sure if the term “limited” is the right word to use here, if the XVI and VIII was lightly perked (1-5), then it’s still a viable ride for the mediocre player, however it's a different story for your average Joe. For a vet like myself, I wouldn't be affected at all.

I disagree.  Flying a perk plane is nothing like flying a free plane.  In the perk plane you are gangbanged just because it is perked.  A free plane, barring the rare ones, does not attract that kind of response and the player is free to have a much more agressive fighting style.

[Saxman]

Sax:
According to DokGonzo's, the Hispano cannon in AHII is approximately 3 times lethal as the .50 cal. This is not a problem, as it conforms to what WWII seem to show. The Hispano 20mm is also the equal of the .50 in trajectory.

This means that the two Hispanos alone are as lethal as 6 .50s. Two Hispanos+2 .50s are equivalent in lethality to 8 .50 cal MGs, the dreaded "buzzsaws" of the P-47!!!.

6 .50s are indeed "middle of the road" as gun packages go in the game.

Remove the Hispano from the equation and you need to completely re-examine your road map. The only guns that really come close to equalling the Browning's combination or range, accuracy, ballistics and hitting power is the Russian 12.7mm. The advantage the Russian guns have is they do it with lighter weight, but they also experience a lot more scattering and and bullet drop, IIRC.

So yeah, saying it's "middle of the road" compared to the Hispano may be technically accurate. But that's a BIG gap with nothing in between them.