If I Like RAF Aircraft

[funked]

I would ask for the Tempest and the Spitfire Mk. XIV, to give the RAF a 1944-45 aircraft matching the other countries.

I would ask that the Spitfire Mk. IX be given clipped wings, 150 octane fuel, increased boost, 4 cannons, a conformal drop tank, and a bubble canopy.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-26-2000).]

[nonoht]

yes yes !!!!!!!!!!!

[Vermillion]

oohhh.. Would you also like a nifty buck rogers ray gun to go with that Funked ?  

hehehe just sitting trying to think of any other "goodie" that existed in the war that you didn't ask for on that aircraft.   JATO bottles perhaps? The La-7R had them.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[juzz]

Make it a Seafire, they had RATO units.

Other options from the Supermarine catalogue:

Spitfire airbrakes, good for -6g accelerations!

Periscopic gunsight - so you can shoot under the nose.

All-seeing rear vision mirror.

6 Hispano cannon.

Rear fuselage fuel tanks.

Contra-rotating props to cancel "torque" effects.

Griffon engine with "GEM" modifications.

And a beer keg under each wing.

PS: All items in list are real.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Pongo]

Certainly lets get a late Spit Ix or Spit XVI.
I would even say the 4 HS load out should be there.(if the negatives that kept it off of line machines can be modeled as well.)

[Karnak]

The day we get the MkXVI instead of the MkXIV is the day I cancel my account.  Sorry, but giving us the MkXVI would just be giving us a plecebo.  "See, its got a late mark number, so its got to be equivilent of a late war plane, go get slaughtered in your new MkIIIV, er, XVI".  The MkXVI is a MkIIIV with an Packard built Merlin engine.  Its performance is not better than the MkIX in any way.  If they aren't going to give us a late war Spitfire, fine.  But don't insult my knowledge by giving me a plecebo with a high Mk number.

Sisu

[juzz]

Mk IIIV?? Lets see, 5-3=2... Wait! That's a Mk II then? Damn! They really are devious bastards!

Here Karnak, how about a nice Mk XIX ok? It's really fast...

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Pongo]

Karnak
breath deep
People have been saying that the Mk IX we have is a mid war one. Fine Lets have that late war one. I said MkXVI not to fool anybody but to give some variety to the plane sets. Plus many of the Canadian Squadrons had XVIs
If you have that big a hang up about which roman numeral you get I hope you do quit

[Karnak]

Yes, the MkXIX was VERY fast.  Of course it doesn't actually have guns or armor, just a camera.  But who needs guns and armor?

(I could be mistaken about this, but I'm pretty sure the above info is correct.  I'll check my books when I get home)

Pongo, my point is that the MkXVI isn't any variance.  It has the appearance of being different, but is in fact the same, thus it is a plecebo.  Giving us the MkXVI would be like giving the German players the Bf109K-4, which is exactly the same performance wise as the Bf109G-10 that they have now.  The difference between the MkIX and MkXVI, like the difference between the Bf109G-10 and Bf109K-4, is a slight cosmetic difference.  I would understand completely if the German flyers got upset if the Bf109K-4 were added.  The only difference is that they already have a late war 109.  Giving us the MkXVI would be giving us a mid-war plane in late-war clothes.  It would allow the German flyers to claim that we have a late war aircraft, when in fact we would not.  I don't care about the roman numeral, I care about the performance.  As I said, if they don't want to add a late war Spitfire, fine, I'll keep flying the MkIX.  Just don't try to pull the wool over my eyes.

Mind you, I'd have no problem with the MkXVI being added at the same time as, or after the MkXIV.  It just isn't really any different than a MkIX.

Sisu

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Nashwan]

It's not the Roman numeral, Pongo, it's the fact that the XVI is really a IX with minor mods. If it had 150 octane it would help make the plane a bit more competitive, but it's no substitute for a real 1944 British plane. You know, the sort of thing the Americans, Germans, Russians and Japanese have got.  

[funked]

Geez guys take it easy, I just started this thread to have a little fun with Pongo.  

[Pongo]

Well the other Spit whiners have allways maintained that the spit IX we have is a 1942 version. And that a 1944 version would be quite a bit supperior. Like the difference between a 109g6 and a G10...
You spit whiners should get your stories straight...
I am talking about puting the 2 years worth of refinments into the spit XVI.  If all we LW fans had was the porked 1942 G6 we have now we would love to get a G10 or a G6Asm. Evidently the only plane that will make you spit pilots feel appeased is the XIV. I think  that is a shame. If we really have a 42 spit IX it would be nice to have the later one.

[jmccaul]

Juzz have you got any more info on some of those
mods - they sound intresting (especially the beerkegs   )

[Wanker]

Geez, guys, chill.

Karnak, do you really think that Pyro wouldn't know the difference between the XIV and the XVI? I'd give him a little more credit than that.

[Karnak]

Not meaning to be too aggressive, sorry.

Pongo, I have never maintained that the MkXVI is to the MkIX what the G10 is to the G6 (I've never even mentioned the MkXVI until today).  Whoever said that the improvement of the MkXVI over the MkIX was anywhere near the improvement of the G10 over the G6 was very wrong (in fact the improvement would be nearly impossible to notice).  The MkXIV is not required to make me happy, but it is the next combat version up from the MkIX.  I'll be happy enough if we stick with the MkIX, but quite unhappy if we get the MkXVI as a late war plane, because its not really.  It however would allow you Luftwaffe types to claim that we have a late war aircraft.  My arguements have always supported the MkXIV as the next Spitfire.

banana, I'm sure that Pyro knows the difference between a MkXIV and a MkXVI, however that doesn't mean that he wouldn't give us a MkXVI based on an apparent desire for that version.  If Pyro modeled a MkXVI I'm sure it would behave very much like the historical MkXVI.  Same goes for the MkXIV.  I'm just trying to kill the "Give us a Spitfire MkXVI" line because of what the Spitfire MkXVI actually was, not because of who suggested it or its Roman numeral.

I'm sorry if people take this as a flame or a whine, its not intended as either.  As far as I can tell I'm just posting information to clear up some misconceptions.  I'm trying to be as neutral as I can, but hey, at least we're not arguing about Spit vs. 109 or 190, now its Spit vs. Spit.

 

Sisu