P51D vs Spitfire MkXIV (14)

[garrido]

Grunherz wrotte:

"A spit 14 is really just a better handling and turning and possibly better climbing Bf109G10 armed with hispanos."

I am sure that asi was in the reality, nothing that to object.

estoy seguro de que asi fue en la realidad, nada que objetar.

Angus wrotte:

"Anyway, the spit 14 would be THE monster in AH, outclimbing 109's, outspeeding practically anything but the 262, and outturning anything but a lot slower planes."

 Against 109 series G yes, against series K no, the K (in teoria) surpassed Spit XIV in speed, acceleration and clim rate (sufficient to win a combat 1 versus 1, that I think), Spitfire XIV has better maneuverability. Without distance icon you see that the Hispanic is not a so great advantage, I think.

Contra 109 series G si, contra series K no, el K (en teoria) aventajaba al Spit XIV en velocidad, aceleracion y clim rate (suficiente para ganar un combate 1 vs 1, eso pienso yo), el Spitfire XIV tiene mejor maniobrabilidad.
Sin icono de distancia usted se daria cuenta que el hispano no es una ventaja tan grande, pienso.

Saludos

Supongo

[garrido]

La leche como traduce de mal este altavista  

Supongo

[Nashwan]

Spit9 - 15 = 320 mph (515km/h) with +18

No, that's fora 15lb boost Merlin 61. Merlin 66 gave 336 at sea level, Merlin 70, optimised for high alt, gave 329 at sea level. Merlin 63, mid rang, 18lb boost would have been close to the Merlin 66 figure.

[Karnak]

niklas,

The rate of climb that you quote is from 1,700ft.  Most of the initial rates of climb that I've seen for aircraft seem to use the climb rate at 5,000ft, where, of course, the climb rate is reduced.

Garrido,

The typical climb rates I have seen for the Spitfire XIV and Bf109K-4 always put the K-4 as better, but by less that 100ft per minute (usually 80ft per minute more).

As others have noted, the Spitfire XIV is not really a speed demon until it hits higher altitudes.

According to the Russian chart posted by butch2k it doesn't surpass the La-7 until just under 4,000 meters, and then the La-7 surpasses it again at just over 5,000 meters, the Spitfire XIV finally gaining a significant and growing advantage over the La-7 at just over 6,000 meters.
The P-51D is faster than the Spitfire XIV up to just over 6,000 meters, whereafter the Spitfire XIV holds a steady advantage.
The Bf109K-4 holds a speed advantage over the Spitfire XIV to over 7,000 meters.  This advantage is particularly strong at 4,000 to 6,750 meters.  Above 7,300 meters or so the Spitfire XIV has a large advantage in speed over the Bf109K-4.

Another interesting note is the speaker at the Con who had flown Spitfire XIVs commented that it could not be held in level flight with an IAS above 450 (I don't recall if it was 450mph or 450 knots, mph I think).

The thing about the Spitfire XIV is that it would dominate the arena if it were free, however as an expensive perk (60-70 point) with a Spit14 icon over it, it'll do rather poorly.  It isn't fast enough at AH combat altitudes to run from the gangbang that happens to perk planes and with the arena as crowded as it has been lately there are always higher aircraft around, particularly after a fight has been joined.

I think that the Spitfire XIV should be a 15 to 30 point perk, maybe 40 on the outside.  It would be the most historically significant (except for the incredible Me262A-1), nuemerically significant and earliest aircraft to be perked.

[Wotan]

good post karnak

30 fer a spitxiv

[GRUNHERZ]

Spit14 should be perked at least 30 points. Whatever its cost it should be limited in use, as its really too good for the AH environment and would be overused.

[Sachs]

30 for a Spit XIV then make it 10-15 for the TA-152 please.

[funkedup]

ROFL

[Seeker]

Do they even realise how ridicuolus this looks?

[Tony Williams]

I was recently reading the memoirs of an RAF WW2 fighter pilot (forget the guy's name - I'm not with my references) who also got to fly a lot of other aircraft.  He specifically compared the P-51 with the contemporary Spit.  He reckoned that the P-51 was very, very good; it did everything well, with no vices or weaknesses.  But it also left him with no great impression of what it was like (he didn't use the word "boring" but that's what it sounded like...).  Basically, it wasn't outstanding in any respect except for range.  The Spit, OTOH, was a pilot's delight, far more responsive and agile.

On the armament side, the general reckoning is that one Hispano was about equal in destructiveness to three .50s (and this was the USN's view).  Do your own sums....

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
NOTE NEW ADDRESS http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams
Gun and ammunition discussions at: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages

[J_A_B]

"Do they even realise how ridicuolus this looks?"


Maybe in 5 years it'll all be remembered with a laugh.

J_A_B

[R4M]

Originally posted by Tony Williams:

On the armament side, the general reckoning is that one Hispano was about equal in destructiveness to three .50s (and this was the USN's view).  Do your own sums....

Maybe in hitting power ,but you MUST hit with it.

50cal had a better RoF than Hispano
50cals in Stang had WAY more ammo per gun than spit's hispanos.
And finally, there were SIX 50 cals for TWO hispanos.

You never kill what you never hit  . I still think the P51D had WAY better weapons than the spit.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Seeker:
Do they even realise how ridicuolus this looks?

no they cannot ...

what about Perking the D9 ?

[fdiron]

I think that the P51 would have a tough time against the spit.  Both the P51 and late model spits were reaching the outside envelopes of piston plane performance.  I think the main significant advantage the P51 had over the spitfire was its range.  You cant fight if your out of gas.  If a P51 and a Spitfire XIV met at 20,000 feet, both with plently of fuel and equally skilled pilots, I think the Spitfire would win.  However, that being said, I think the P51 is a much more important plane due to the fact that it saved the lives of thousands of bomber crews.

[gatt]

No, the XIV should not be perked. Why are you using a double standard? If you perk a Spitfire XIV you should perk the G-10, the P-51D, the La7, the D-9 and so on. Would the Spitfire XIV be too good? Well, so be it. The range means nothing here: the MA is for fun. His range will be a problem (maybe) during scenarios.

In the meantime, we are still waiting an answer from PYRO about the lack of late war Spitfires.  

Disclaimer: this is an opinion of a player flying axis 95% of his time