Author Topic: Please fix the Spitfire Mk IX (Read 1210 times)

Karnak · « **on:** August 18, 2002, 03:13:59 PM »

The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is a conglomerate of Spitfire Mk IXs. No single Spitfire Mk IX in reality had the combined options that the AH Spitfire Mk IX has. No Merlin 61 powered Spitfire Mk IX ever carried .50 cals or rockets, yet the AH Spitfire Mk IX is powered by a Merlin 61 and has those options.

There are two methods to fix this:

Remove the option for the .50 calibre machine guns and the rockets.

This is the method I would prefer. It would also be interesting if the negative G engine cut out were added to the FM as quite a few Spitfire F.Mk IXs suffered from it. This would make AH's Spitfire Mk IX a good representation of a 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX and would lower the number of people using the Spitfire Mk IX in the MA.

Redo the FM of the Spitfire Mk IX to match the numbers given by Merlin 66 or Merlin 70 powered Spitfire Mk IXs.

This would, particularly in the case of the Merlin 66 powered Spitfire LF.Mk IX, give AH a far more representative Spitfire Mk IX and would allow it to be justifiable kept out of 1942 scernarios. It would also make the Spitfire Mk IX more common in the MA than it is right now.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2002, 03:22:34 PM »

"It would also make the Spitfire Mk IX more common in the MA than it is right now."

Well if anything ever needed fixing in AH this certainly is it.

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** August 18, 2002, 03:28:17 PM »

GRUNHERZ,

Perhaps you noticed that it wasn't my favored option.

No, that'd actually take the ability to comprehend what somebody who is not blatantly pro-Luftwaffe says.

I included that statement to show the downside of that solution. Of course, you couldn't figure that out.

(The P-51D is more common than the Spitfire Mk IX according to AKDejaVu's stats)

Urchin · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2002, 03:47:27 PM »

Or take that gun and rocket away from our Spit IX, rename it Spitfire F IX, and add a new 1944 Spit LF IX.

thrila · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2002, 03:58:53 PM »

I like Urchin's solution. However i would prefer if it had clipped wings. A bubble canopy would be cool too.

It's really quite ammusing that the RAF hasn't got it's 1943/44 mainstream fighter. For someone like me who loves RAF planes thats quite a shame.

Kweassa · « **Reply #5 on:** August 18, 2002, 04:01:48 PM »

Hmm.. I like Urchin's and thrila's idea.

Some of the aircraft types served for a long extended time, and were continuously modified - thus having large differences in the first and the last. It would be a good way to depict the historicity in AH. Of course, we wouldn't be able to do the same thing on all of AH aircraft, but few specific planes do come into mind:

Getting to see "Spitfire MkIX('42)" and "Spitfire MkIX('44)" wouldn't be too bad. Clipped wing, bubble canopy Spit9!

Typhoons, too. I recall hearing that the Typhies we have are the 1944 standard, which corrected most of its design flaws and weaknesses. If that is true, getting the "Typhoon IB('42)" and "Typhoon IB('44)" would also be good.

.. and of course(hehehe..), the same treatment for the Bf109G-6. A "Bf109G-6('43)" without Galland Haube and the Erla Haube.. and maybe a "Bf109G-6('44)" with the AS engines? (or keep the G-6 and put in the G-14?? )

...

Hehe sorry I used the thread to insert my own personal request. But anyway, as I said, I think Urchin/thrila idea is good. But of course, it'd be way way low on priority even if HTC agrees on the general direction....

Wotan · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2002, 04:17:36 PM »

I agree with urchin as well

also give the lw a later model g6 or g14

See how difficult it would be to put an rps together for ah.

Also for the mission theater. I still remeber the typh replacing the beufighter in the North Africa event. Thank god there was no dt for the typh then.

we need the correct planes for the correct time frames or the beetching will be unbearable.

Karnak · « **Reply #7 on:** August 18, 2002, 05:24:06 PM »

I didn't suggest adding another Spitfire because of how mocked and unpopular that idea is.

A clipped wing Spitfire LF.Mk IX might be just the trick. It wouldn't turn as well and it'd be a dog at high altitude, but it would roll better. If the most modern non-perked Spit suffered a significant loss of turn performance that might cause a more balanced usage of the various Spitfires.

I also agree that a Bf109G-6 with MW50 or a Bf109G-14 would be a good addition.

EDIT:

Kweassa,

The Spitfires could simply be labeled "Spitfire F.Mk IX" for the 1942 Spit and "Spitfire LF.Mk IX" for the 1943 Spitfire.

The Bf109s could could be labeled "Bf109G-6" for the 1943 G-6 and "Bf109G-6/UT" for the 1944 G-6. Or simply add the Bf109G-14 for the intrim 109 between the G-6 and G-10, though that would confuse many players into picking the G-14 as the top 109.

The Typhoon wouldn't be significantly different. It'd have slightly worse visibility, but all the other problems were reliability issues and AH doesn't model those problems. I don't think there is enough of a difference to justify two Typhoons.

Puke · « **Reply #8 on:** August 18, 2002, 05:43:34 PM »

Quote

Karnak: (The P-51D is more common than the Spitfire Mk IX according to AKDejaVu's stats)

Unfair comparison because people are selecting a specific Spit for a particular job at hand. The Spit I, V, IX, XIV and Seafire are used almost twice as much as the P51B and P51D combined. Give us the P51H and maybe other P51 variants and you'll see the P51D useage diminish. But looking at one variant is a horrible way to take a census of useage in the MA.

Oh yeah, and one point in the data (one month) hardly makes a trend. Do your research and review AKDeja's stats going back for several months and crunch a few of the numbers. In the past, I've done such things and noted that there have been months where the Spitfire collection accounts for almost 20% of all fighter-fighter kills in the MA, based on AKDeja's stats from months past. I cannot comment on how accurate Deja's stats are, though.

Urchin · « **Reply #9 on:** August 18, 2002, 05:54:58 PM »

It isn't unfair in the least. People select planes for individual 'jobs' all the tme.

As much as people hate to admit it, the Spit IX and Spit V ARE actually two different planes, with totally different capabilities.

Adding in a Spit LF IX, at least the clipped wing version that was by far the most common of the Spit IX series, would be like adding a different 109. You aren't going to try to tell me that the 109g-10 and the 109f-4 are the same plane too, are you?

It really is puzzling to me why people hate Spits so much. Can someone clear it up for me? I'll tell you what they look like from my point of view. If I am in any 190, they are going to die. Or at the very least, we are both going to live. If I am in a 109G, they are going to die, or at the very least we are both going to live. If I am in a 109F, there will usually be a pretty good fight. If I am in a 109E, there will usually be an even better fight.

The Spit IX (and to a lesser extent the V) are the 'newbie planes' of our MA. They turn well, have good firepower, climb well, and dive well. Their level speed absolutely sucks compared to every other common plane in the MA. If you are getting killed 1v1 against Spits, you are making some serious mistakes. I'd be more than happy to go to the DA with you and try to show you their weak points.

Granted, in a 1 vs many, a spit has a much better chance to get you than say, a 109 does. But, in that case... YOU still screwed up by getting yourself in that situation to begin with. And yes, I understand that with some of the early war planes it is a hard situation to avoid, and I sympathize with you- but our MA is not an early war arena. It is a mid-late war arena. At least in most of the early war planes you can FIGHT the spit, which beats getting BnZ'd by a P-51, LA-7, 109G-10, or 190D-9 any day.

Puke · « **Reply #10 on:** August 18, 2002, 06:03:39 PM »

Quote

You aren't going to try to tell me that the 109g-10 and the 109f-4 are the same plane too, are you?

Yes, it is the same plane, just a different variant. And in the MA, they'd both wear the same exact tag.. "109" so that they'd be indistinguishible.

As you add variants to a type, the useage then gets spread out among the variants thus diminishing the use of any single one. I would guarantee you, if we had more Pony variants, the use of the P51D would drop. Add another P38 or add the F6F-3 and the useage of those original types in AH will drop too. If we only had a Spit9 and Spit1, I also put forth the Spit9 useage would increase dramatically.

Anyway, as to the main topic. Anything to make the Spitfire more accurate I'd be for as well.

Quote

It really is puzzling to me why people hate Spits so much.

I don't really hate the Spitfire. I respect the aircraft historically. I just happen to disagree in regards to viewing the useage of aircraft and comparing useage and I stand firm on that ground. However, in the MA, the Spitfire strikes me as being the Pop Music of the Air...it'd be very nice to listen to another radio station at times.

I fly the F4U-1 mainly, I'd be interested in seeing if the F4U-1D useage dropped at all once that was introduced. However, it may prove impossible because of the factor of the swarm of new players to the MA.

Kweassa · « **Reply #11 on:** August 18, 2002, 06:08:48 PM »

... and a very own thread for why people hate Spitfires is here.

SELECTOR · « **Reply #12 on:** August 18, 2002, 06:12:48 PM »

MAD! all gone MAD!..
whats the matter they shoot your nik or la7 or p51ds down to much..

most people dont carry bombs or rocks on their spit9..
they use a plane more suited to the task..

Karnak · « **Reply #13 on:** August 18, 2002, 06:13:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Puke:
I would guarantee you, if we had more Pony variants, the use of the P51D would drop.

That's BS and you know it. The P-51B had essentially no effect on the P-51D's usage. The P-51A / A-36 will have even less. The P-51H would have virtually none due to being perked, just as the Spitfire Mk XIV has had virtually no effect on the usage of other Spitfires.

Why?

Because the reasons that people fly the P-51D will not be satisfied by any other P-51 except the P-51B, which has already been demonstrated to have no effect on P-51D usage.

Quite frankly, people who fly the P-51D have stronger "ride loyalty" than people who choose to fly any other aircraft. They don't want to fly a P-51, they want to fly a P-51D.

Puke · « **Reply #14 on:** August 18, 2002, 06:31:28 PM »

Quote

just as the Spitfire Mk XIV has had virtually no effect on the usage of other Spitfires

Sure it has. I would put forth that many people decide on flying a Spitfire first and only secondly decide on which variant. The more choices available, the less likely on particular variant will be used. I would be interested in the Spit numbers if all we had available was the Spitfire9.

Anyway, still. Go back a few months and review only Spit9 useage vs the P51D. Again, one month does not make a trend. I would suspect the P51D was used more this past month with the introduction of the high altitude pizza map and the bomber formations. I welcome change and a new King-Of-The-Hill in the MA doesn't worry me.

BTW, I personally would want to fly the P51B.

I hope we are only politely disagreeing. Cheers!