Author Topic: P-43 Lancer  (Read 3682 times)

Offline DemonFox

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: P-43 Lancer
« Reply #60 on: May 11, 2011, 10:45:16 AM »
Shortcomings? You mean my PBY don't you  :old:  :lol

Offline STEELE

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
Re: P-43 Lancer
« Reply #61 on: May 11, 2011, 01:52:19 PM »
psst guppy should we tell him the XVI is a Mk IX spit?
Just because AH has its FTH modeled 1000 ft. higher/lower than it should be, automatically makes it a Spit IX?
The Kanonenvogel had 6 rounds per pod, this is not even close to being open for debate.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: P-43 Lancer
« Reply #62 on: May 11, 2011, 02:03:20 PM »
Just because AH has its FTH modeled 1000 ft. higher/lower than it should be, automatically makes it a Spit IX?
Lower than it should be for a Merlin 266, just right for a Merlin 66.

There are no other differences between the two aircraft, so why would it not be a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe?

In any case, many more Mk XVI's saw combat than the 188 he pulled out of his imagination.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: P-43 Lancer
« Reply #63 on: May 11, 2011, 04:59:44 PM »
Didn't mean to offend by calling you baby ugly.  ;)

That is why they make Blue suits, AND Brown suits.  :aok

I'm a sucker for Republic Razorbacks~ Wouldn't be the first time they were called ugly~ no worries :salute

Offline B3YT

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
Re: P-43 Lancer
« Reply #64 on: May 11, 2011, 05:10:28 PM »
you see I had a long , very polite discussion with Karnak  about the spit LFIX e and the spit XVI  and the differences between them (or lack of) .  He helped to  point out why there "seemed" to be discrepancies in a  a book i was reading as regards weights  and fuel load outs ect (mostly down to the heavier weight of ammo ) .   The Mk IX high altitude we have in game is a 1942/43 spit IX , IF we were to use spit IX from 1944 onwards then it would have the  same load out as the  in game XVI with full span wings and same fuel arrangement.   The ONLY difference was the merlin 266 in the XVI uses a different supercharger that is chain driven not driven by exhaust like the Rolls Royce merlin 66. Yet this makes no difference to the amount compression of the fuel mixture .      

What we are missing is the cut down fuselage spit IX (XVI) with bubble canopy .  which came both in full span and clipped wing.  
As the cleaners say :"once more unto the bleach"

Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: P-43 Lancer
« Reply #65 on: May 11, 2011, 05:15:14 PM »
Where did you get your Spit XVI combat numbers from? A bad source apparently, subsequent searches put figures around 1,000 produced. Can't even find it now~  :old:

Understand my all time favorite bird is the Spitfire XII.  100 built and it did see plenty of combat in 43-44.  That being said, I've also always said it should be down the list as there is a good representation of Spits.  The Lancer is nothing more then a novelty, and I like it's story, but for AH it's way way down the list behind far more historically relevant birds.

I would be extremely surprised if it got put in the game anytime soon Gup, if ever really at this rate~


i'd like to see the p-43 included...with leaking fuel tanks and no pilot armor...  :D  hey, fresh off the factory floor that's how they were, no field mods allowed...  :lol


I don't think it could be any worse than my existing P-47 which generates pw and fuel leaks at an alarming rate in spite of the huge weight penalty from all that armor and self sealing tanks. The P-43 has a lot lighter wing loading 33lbs/foot v 58lbs/foot in the jug. F4F is 30lbs/sq ft so pretty close, should turn pretty well.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 05:23:24 PM by Seadog36 »