Author Topic: Pyro, HiTech, could we have the Spit IX modeled as a single varient? (Read 1088 times)

Karnak · « **on:** August 30, 2001, 05:37:00 PM »

Right now the Spitfire MkIX we have is a mixture of Spitfire MkIX varients.

It has the Merlin 61 of an F.MkIX.
It has the gun options of an LF.MkIX or HF.MkIX.
It has the ordinance options of an LF.MkIX or HF.MkIX.
It has a German 300 litre drop tank.

Would it be possible in some future version, maybe 1.09 or 1.1, to have it narrowed down to a single version?

Say:

Spitfire F.MkIX
Engine: Merlin 61
Armament: 2 20mm Hispano MkII Cannon and 4 .303 Browning machine guns
Ordinance: 2 250lb bombs
Droptank: 1 90 Imperial Gallon drop tank.

HTC has never responed to the Spitfire MkIX issues raised here, at least not that I have seen.

Please fix the Spitfire MkIX.

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

juzz · « **Reply #1 on:** August 31, 2001, 06:11:00 PM »

2x250lb wing bombs was available first on the Mk V, so the Spitfire VC and F.IX in AH should definitely have them. And the 30 gallon slipper DT too.

Nashwan · « **Reply #2 on:** August 31, 2001, 06:28:00 PM »

I don't think the Merlin 61 engined Spit F IX had mounting points for a fuselage bomb, let alone wing bombs.
In early 43 AAEE tested a bomb rack carrying a 500lb bomb. They noted the rack was designed and built by fighter Command, which makes it a field modification. The early F IXs (like the one in AH) didn't have bomb racks available as standard.

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** August 31, 2001, 07:02:00 PM »

Fixed the ordinance in my request.

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** September 04, 2001, 01:50:00 AM »

ramzey · « **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2003, 05:55:11 AM »

Furball · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2003, 07:50:04 AM »

How about giving it the universal wing (which it seems to already have) so that we can have 4 hispano's mounted......

Oh how they would whine

Squire · « **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2003, 08:07:34 AM »

No reason not to have the Merlin 66 L.F. IX as well. It was one of the most widely used types. Either the C wing or the E wing armament. There is plenty of data on the type.

ramzey · « **Reply #8 on:** July 02, 2003, 08:40:57 AM »

its not the point to have quad hispano, i can live without this

but

Mk IX was build in about 5500 airplanes in versions F, LF, HF

about 1300 whare build in F mk IX
about 200 where build with merlin 61 engine /this one we have in AH/ Worsest and earliest spit ever have.
This was planes with mkV fuselage

80% of spitfires mk9 ever made was equiped with merlin 66-70 engines with much better performance then merlin 61

about 2600 spitfires mk9 was LF version with merlin 63,66,70

so if we have unperked and powerfull planes like 190D9 and La7 + powerfull late war US planes, whichone going to be "fix" in AH2, why not fix spits /mk9 and mk5/ + varians /external drop tanks, bombs, wings types/

now we have something whats looks like spitfirre but its hard to name /versions of arment/

ramzey

Kweassa · « **Reply #9 on:** July 02, 2003, 03:39:04 PM »

Agreed.

In the same spirit, we request better 109G-6s.

Maybe a perk option? Shi*ty G-6 and Spit9s come free, give them engine/wing/armament upgrades and they become a light perk plane..??

funkedup · « **Reply #10 on:** July 02, 2003, 05:43:10 PM »

Isn't 3 109G's enough?

Batz · « **Reply #11 on:** July 02, 2003, 06:07:37 PM »

no it isnt, especially in the mt and events.

The g6 we have is just as a hybrid as the spit 9. Its has the performance of an early g6.

I agree that theres other priorities. In particular on the japaneese and vvs side. But I think what karnak and the rest of you guys are asking in regards toward the mut spit 9 isnt unreasonable. I question the need to perk a better version in the same way I would in perking say a late war g6.

In reality we need many more 109s

109e3
109e4b
109e7b
109f2
109g6 late version
109g6/as
109g14
109k4

You can never have enough 109s

then more 190s

190a2
190a3
190a4
190a6
190a7
190a9
190 g variant
190 d9 44 variant
190d9 45 variant

the theres the heinkel bombers and a Do 217

while we wait for those fixing the bastardized spit 9 can get worked in.

ramzey · « **Reply #12 on:** July 02, 2003, 06:42:44 PM »

AH is going forward , right?

so its time to fix some things
now without reason opinion "spit outperform 109" was given
If FB can have various types we can have too

IIRC AH2 TOD will need more detailed planeset then current we have. I cannot imagine mission arena without correct planeset according to wartime. Of cours with numbers of aircraft produced in this time.

btw Wotan i long time wait to use this again;)

regards

ramzey

Batz · « **Reply #13 on:** July 02, 2003, 07:23:13 PM »

lol I wasnt whining I was agreeing with you

plus adding a plug for us lw

besides thwe spit is so ugly we need 3 109 and 3 190 to correct the beauty factor of the ah planeset........

funkedup · « **Reply #14 on:** July 02, 2003, 07:24:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
lol I wasnt whining I was agreeing with you

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!