Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Pooface on July 11, 2005, 05:30:46 PM
-
ok, once work begins on the spits and 109's, i think we need to look at the models. i would hope that the list looks like this:
Spits
spit1
spit5 - downgrade the engne power
spit9 - upgrade engine. get rid of 50 cals package
NEW, spit lf 9e - clipped wing, with low alt rated engine, 50 cal setup
spit14 - upgrade performance a little, bring down the perk price, because it doesnt turn well at low alt and speed, which is the main advantage of the spits. it a high alt fighter, and has no real need for a heavy perk
NEW, spit 16
109's
109e4
109f4
109g2
109g6
NEW, 109g14
109g10 - we all know its the best buff hunter in the game, but people use it as a fighter, and run coz it cant turn. we could reduce this by changing the eny.
NEW, 109k4
anyone elses thoughts. (sorry, i dont know much about the 109's :))
-
(Ahem! Remove Seafire II and add Seafire L III)
:D
nice list though
---------------------------------------------------
spit9 - upgrade engine. get rid of 50 cals package
Early spitfire 9s were basically spitfire 5 airframe with more powerful merlin 61 engine. I think HTC will need 2 spitfire 9s for mid war (F. IX) and late war (LF. IX).
-
oh yeah, forgot about that:lol
no need to remove the seafire 2, its good to have a variety. but yes, SF3 needs to be added, and ty ike:aok
-
Originally posted by 1K3
spit9 - upgrade engine. get rid of 50 cals package
Early spitfire 9s were basically spitfire 5 airframe with more powerful merlin 61 engine. I think HTC will need 2 spitfire 9s for mid war (F. IX) and late war (LF. IX).
yeah, thats what i meant. f9 for earlier, which should only have a 303 option, but the performance needs to be tweaked up a bit. at the moment its only 5 mph faster than the 5 :)
then add LF9 as a later war plane with clipped wings, and only a 50cal/cannon loadout
-
spit5 - downgrade the engne power
spit9 - upgrade engine. get rid of 50 cals package
Why?
109g10 - we all know its the best buff hunter in the game, but people use it as a fighter, and run coz it cant turn. we could reduce this by changing
I disagree on the statement that the g10 can't turnfight well.
-
Originally posted by Messiah
spit5 - downgrade the engne power
spit9 - upgrade engine. get rid of 50 cals package
Why?
109g10 - we all know its the best buff hunter in the game, but people use it as a fighter, and run coz it cant turn. we could reduce this by changing the ENY
I disagree on the statement that the g10 can't turnfight well.
Downgrade engine power for Spitfire Mk. 5 to +12 boost (standard in 1941) because our current spit 5 doesnt represent its correct timeframe... 1941. Our spit 5 (with +16 boost) is based on 1942, at the time when spit 9s were more common.
-----------------------------
Evolution of Spitfires
1940: Spitfire 1a
1941: Spitfire 5 (standard +12 booost)
1942: Spitfire F. 9 (early spit 9 mark)
1943: Spitfire 8, Spitfire LF 9
1944-45: Spitfire 14, Spitfire LF 16
-
Originally posted by Messiah
spit5 - downgrade the engne power
spit9 - upgrade engine. get rid of 50 cals package
Why?
109g10 - we all know its the best buff hunter in the game, but people use it as a fighter, and run coz it cant turn. we could reduce this by changing
I disagree on the statement that the g10 can't turnfight well.
irl, the difference between the 5 and 9 were quite big. the 5 wasnt as powerful as that for a long time, and the 9 was a lot more powerful than it is now. our 9 is set as an earlier war variant, so there should not be a 50 setup. then, we introduce a LF9, which is a later version, which has 50cals, and clipped wings, with a merlin created specifically for low fighting, which is also more powerful than the 9 we have now.
i would then suggest perk prices as follows
seaf2c 25
seaf3 20
spit1 60
spit5 20
F spit9 15
Lf spit 9 10
spit14 5
spit16 5, or quite low
oh, and btw, i dont think that the g10 cant turn fight, but most people dont use it that way. it is a very high performance plane - high speed, amazing climb, amazing guns, good armour, good fuel endurance. all around amazing plane. giving it an eny of 20 while the very un spitlike spit14 is perked and has eny of 5!!!. thats silly. g10 should have a lower eny
-
At a minimum I would like to see added:
Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc (full span, universal wing, Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost)
Bf109G-14 (Bf109G-6 with MW50, top speed about 420mph, fills the gap between the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-10)
Boost on the Spitfire Mk V reduced to +12lbs boost.
Here is the complete Spitfire lineup I'd really like to see:
Here is my prefered list:
1940: Spitfire Mk Ia (increase performance to +12lbs boost levels)
1941-1942: Spitfire Mk Vc, +12lbs boost (120 rounds per cannon, but reduce the boost to 1941 levels so Merlin 45 at +12lbs boost)
1942-1943: Spitfire F.Mk IXc (remove the options for the .50 cals, rockets and 250lb bombs, otherwise keep it as it is with Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost.)
1943-1944: Spitfire LF.Mk VIII (Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost, full length Universal wings. Can stand in for the 1943 LF.Mk IX as well as be suitable for Med. and Pac. theatre usage)
1944-1945: Spitfire F.Mk XIV, +21lbs boost (Keep the armament options, but raise the boost to the +21lbs level to justify it's perked status and keep it as the ultimate Spitfire in AH)
1944-1945: Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe, +25lbs boost (clipped wing and perhaps bubble canopy as the Mk VIII is available to stand in for the high back Mk IX in 1943/44. This would be the ultimate free Spitfire)
Royal Navy: Seafire L.Mk III (the most common wartime Seafire)
In total those six Spitfires and one Seafire give the most comprehensive coverage of Spitfires/Seafires that saw service in WWII while keeping the total number of units to a minimum.
See this recent thread for an extensive discussion about it:
Suggested, complete Spitfire lineup for Aces High (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=153344)
-
pooface is a true spitdweeb =D
-
"NEW, spit 16 "
AFAIK; Spit XVI was merely a normal Spit IX powered by a Packard built Merlin. It would be redundant.
-
I think people forget that the +12 Spit V was still a very good plane. All the complaints about the extra boost are much ado about nothing. Whether the Spit V is at +12 or +16, it's going to anger and disappoint a select group of you no matter what. Yes, that means it's still going to beat up your planes, steal your girlfriends, and key your cars.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Seeker
"NEW, spit 16 "
AFAIK; Spit XVI was merely a normal Spit IX powered by a Packard built Merlin. It would be redundant.
bubble canopy and more power than the 9, also had option for clipped wings
-
Originally posted by Seeker
"NEW, spit 16 "
AFAIK; Spit XVI was merely a normal Spit IX powered by a Packard built Merlin. It would be redundant.
Spit 9 and 16 are very different (check the engine ratings;))
Spit 9 and 16 will be different using karnak's list. In the list, Spit 9 will be presented as a "stopgap aircraft" (1942) untill the spit 8 comes in full production (1943). Spit 16 will be the ultimate merlin powered spits, Just like the planned Bf-109G-14.
1942-1943: Spitfire F.Mk IXc (remove the options for the .50 cals, rockets and 250lb bombs, otherwise keep it as it is with Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost.)
1943-1944: Spitfire LF.Mk VIII (Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost, full length Universal wings. Can stand in for the 1943 LF.Mk IX as well as be suitable for Med. and Pac. theatre usage)
1944-1945: Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe, +25lbs boost (clipped wing. This would be the ultimate free Spitfire)
-
1K3,
Well, the Spitfire LF.Mk IX and Spitfire LF.Mk XVI are the same aircraft, other than the British Merlin 66 in the Mk IX and the American Merlin 266 in the Mk XVI, and those are the same engine except for where they were built. By the time the Mk XVI was in service the Mk IX's were at +25lbs boost as well.
In terms of AH it is an easy thing to use the LF.Mk IX and LF.Mk XVI to separate out the 1943 and 1944/45 performance of the LF.Mk IX while still enableing HTC to use simple mark numbers to identify them like the current Spitfire Mk IX is identified as a Spitfire Mk IX instead of as a Spitfire F.Mk IXc.
Which brings me to the reasons I did not include the Spitfire LF.Mk IX in my list. 1) Keeping the simple mark identification meant that to have a Spitfire LF.Mk IX in AH it would preclude the Spitfire F.Mk IX and that would leave 1942 coverage bare. 2) The Spitfire LF.Mk IX would leave the CBI and Pacific Theaters without a representative Spitfire. 3) The Spitfire LF.Mk VIII would solve both point 1 and 2 and still be a suitable substitute for the Spitfire LF.Mk IX for European or Mediteranean theater settings.
-
IMHO, counterparts with good balance :
1939
Spit I, 2-pitch, 87 octane vs. Bf 109E-3
1940
Spit I, CS, 100 octane vs. Bf 109E-4/N or E-7/N
1941
Spit Vb, +12lbs, vs. 109F-2 MG151/15
1942
Spit Vc, +16lbs vs. 109F-4 MG 151/20 at 1.42ata :cool:
Spit IXF Merlin 61/+15, vs. 109G-2
Perhaps G-2 would suffice instead of F-4/1.42, as they are similiar in performance and 109G was more typical
1943
Spit VIIILF, +18, vs. Bf 109G-6 at 1.42ata, opt. glass head armor
1944/45
Spit IX/XVI at +25 vs Bf 109G-14 with MW50. optional MK 108
Spit XIV +18 vs. G-10/1.8ata with MG 151/20. Also stands for G-6/AS and G-14/AS.
Spit XIV +21 vs. K-4 at 1.98ata and MK 108
This would bring a very balanced Spit vs. Messer setup.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
bubble canopy and more power than the 9, also had option for clipped wings
But don't those points; bubble canopy and clipped wings apply to the IX?
-
1944-1945: Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe, +25lbs boost (clipped wing. This would be the ultimate free Spitfire)
Would it? If this is indeed a Packard built Merlin; wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a Griffon type to out perfom it?
Or is that taken account of with: "This would be the ultimate _free_ Spitfire"?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
1944-1945: Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe, +25lbs boost (clipped wing. This would be the ultimate free Spitfire)
Would it? If this is indeed a Packard built Merlin; wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a Griffon type to out perfom it?
Or is that taken account of with: "This would be the ultimate _free_ Spitfire"?
That is in acount of the "free" part. The ultimate Spitfire would be the perked Mk XIV at +21lbs boost.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
109's
109e4
109f4
109g2
109g6
NEW, 109g14
109g10 - we all know its the best buff hunter in the game, but people use it as a fighter, and run coz it cant turn. we could reduce this by changing the eny.
NEW, 109k4
anyone elses thoughts. (sorry, i dont know much about the 109's :))
From what I have read, the AH109G-10 is about the same as the 109G14 and 109K4. What would the G14 and the K4 add that the G10 does not have. If I remember right, the G10 is a retrofitted 109 with the K4 engine. Lighter airframe, bigger engine. Supposed to be better than the K4 in many ways although structurally less sound than the K4. I dont see any reason for these other models, and I am a fan of the 109.
-
The problem is that our G-10 is a bastardised 109. It's a cross between the *real* G-10 and the K-4.
The 109G-14 is basically a G-6 with better engine power. Same guns and armament package, but the added engine power makes it that much better.
-
The G-14 is not like a G-10 performance wise.
The G-14 would be more like a G-6 on mil power and have the addition of MW-50 (faster w/emergency power below FTH)
The G-10 we have in AH is really a K-4 with the option of having 2cm cannon.
HT (or Pyro) said as much.
The G-10 and K-4 have a larger supercharger (taken or modified from the DB 603). The G-10 would be faster at all altitudes and considerably faster up high.
What the G-14 would do is fill the gap between the G-10/K-4 hybrid and the G-6 we have now.
The G-6 in AH has a max speed speed of around 385 mph at 22k FT.
The G-10 is 452 mph at the same altitude.
The G-14 would do around 410mph at 20k feet.
Below 20K feet though the G-14's speed advantage will be much greater then the current G-6 on emergency power:
AH G-6 @ SL: 338mph
G-14 @ SL: 355mph
AH G-10 @ SL: 370mph
More importantly for ToD the G-14 entered squadron service in July '44, the G-10 (same with the K-4) in October '44.
The AH G-6 entered service Feb/ Aug '43.
Not only does AH have a performance gap. They have no 109 that saw service from Aug '43 to October '44 (G-6/AS, G-14, G-14/AS).
If AH does a true G-10 then it can fill in for the AS engined 109s. The one late war 109 AH needs is the 109G-14.
The G-14 is basically a G-6 with MW-50.
The G-6 has a DB 605A engine
The G-14 has a DB 605AM engine.
M = MW-50.
-
My vote would be the 109G-14 as the added varient. Despite small differences between the 109G-10 (as it is in AH), and a 109K-4, they both were introduced at the same time with very similar performances.
It would be like asking for a Spit LF IX and a Spit LF VIII. The differences are very small.
For the Spitfire, I would like to see the Spit LF IXc or LF VIIIc. Either is fine. Fix the Spitfire V by making it either a Spit Vb, or a Spit Vc. Decide and go with it, but once the decision is made, dont have another bastardised version. Same with the Spit F. IX It should have the C armament only, 15lbs boost, and leave it alone.
It would also help if the timeframe for TOD was known.
Other possible Spits to look at would be the Spit VII (High alt fighter), Spit HF IXc (High alt fighter), and the Spit LF Vb, but sticking to the most common and usefull varients is still the best course. We aren't going to get every exotic type that flew.
And a P-47C.
Seafire L.III is not really needed for a ETO TOD, but at some point, I wont cry if they added it. My guess is we will see it in a Pacific setup.
-
Another not often raised point about the Spits is the total lack of a drop tank for the Spit Vs (but they give it a bomb), and only one type for the IX and XIV.
Give them the proper, historical 30 and 45 gallon "slipper tanks" for use, as well as the later 50 gallon aluminum dt.
-
Kurfie had a list:
"IMHO, counterparts with good balance :
1939
Spit I, 2-pitch, 87 octane vs. Bf 109E-3
1940
Spit I, CS, 100 octane vs. Bf 109E-4/N or E-7/N
1941
Spit Vb, +12lbs, vs. 109F-2 MG151/15
1942
Spit Vc, +16lbs vs. 109F-4 MG 151/20 at 1.42ata
Spit IXF Merlin 61/+15, vs. 109G-2
Perhaps G-2 would suffice instead of F-4/1.42, as they are similiar in performance and 109G was more typical
1943
Spit VIIILF, +18, vs. Bf 109G-6 at 1.42ata, opt. glass head armor
1944/45
Spit IX/XVI at +25 vs Bf 109G-14 with MW50. optional MK 108
Spit XIV +18 vs. G-10/1.8ata with MG 151/20. Also stands for G-6/AS and G-14/AS.
Spit XIV +21 vs. K-4 at 1.98ata and MK 108
This would bring a very balanced Spit vs. Messer setup."
Quite good IMHO :aok
One edit would be a 1943 Spit IX LF with the merlin 66 or 70 +25, - but again, they are very similar to the VIII.
Then it is also the question of clipping or not. A hangar option?
-
Too many Angus -
All we need
1940 - Spit Ia - Merlin II 12lbs boost (as per BoB std) not the 6lbs we currenty have.
1941 - Spit LF Vb - Merlin 45M 12lbs boost as per 1941
1942 - Spit F IX"b" - Merlin 61 our current one but remove 50 cal and ord options.
1943 - Spit LF VIII"b" - Merlin 66 Std boost, broad chord pointed rudder, possibly short span ailerons.
1944 - Spit F XIVc- Our current but increase to 21lbs boost (make perks worth it)
1944 - Spit LF XVIe - Merlin 266 25lbs boost, clipped wings, broad chord pointy tail, and just for aesthetics a bubble canopy.
Seafire L III - Merlin 55M
That covers 1940 up to 1945 and gives the most produced, most common Spits.
Also gives the MkVIII for Far east scenarios, the LF XVI can stand in for the LF IX in scenarios.
Nice addition if it was possible would be the option to choose clipped/std/pointed wings, and engine type in the hanger. i.e Depending on role (F,LF,HF) the Mk VIII had either a Merlin 63,63A,66,or 70.
So if you were going to fight high alt you'd take the Merlin 70 and std wings, med alt Merlin 63 or 63A, low alt Merlin 66 with the option for clipped wings. With certain Mks having the option for pointed wings for the high alt version.
Explanation of IXb, VIIIb - The original designation for the 'c' wing was 4x20mms. The arrangement of 2x20mm and 4x303 with ord options has been more properly called the "improved b wing"
-
Kev for christ sakes GET ON AH. I know you've been working on the spits hard, but we miss porking with ya :}
-
Originally posted by Angus
Spit XIV +21 vs. K-4 at 1.98ata and MK 108
The K-4 @ 1.98 should be a perked a/c. Compared to the number of K-4s @ 1.80 it was only 'penny pocket' in numbers.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
the LF XVI can stand in for the LF IX in scenarios.
Not with a bubble canopy it can't, nor at +25lbs boost.
-
So, we'd still miss the +25 boost Spit IX, and that's it.
And the 109K, a perk plane, - yes.
PERK KURFURST, muhahahaha :D
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The G-14 is not like a G-10 performance wise.
That all depends... there were the G-14 with small supercharger, and the G-14/AS with the large(high alt) supercharger, the same one from DB 603G used on the G-10/K-4.
The G-14/AS and G-10 were almost identical in performance, ie. the former did 680 kph at 7.5km, the latter 685-690 at the same altitude. Of course the G-10 had the 605D engine, which could run either 1800/2000HP, while the G-14/AS`s 605ASM could only run at 1800HP (it was an interim solution to the 605D enigne)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Not with a bubble canopy it can't, nor at +25lbs boost.
Sure it can, it's not such a big stretch considering what does stand in for other aircraft as things are at the moment.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The K-4 @ 1.98 should be a perked a/c. Compared to the number of K-4s @ 1.80 it was only 'penny pocket' in numbers.
There`s information on 1.98ata(2000HP) K-4s/G-10s on my site :
http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/
Briefly, OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45 and Niederscrhrif Nr. 6730. Daimler-Benz AG, Sektor Entwicklung. 20.1.45 shows that a single Gruppe, II./JG 11 converted to 1.98ata for operational testing in January 1945, with four other Gruppe employed on the Western front, ie. I./JG 27, III./JG 27, III./JG 53, IV./JG 53, converting to 1.98ata in March 1945.
Each Luftwaffe Gruppe (=Wing) would contain 3-4 fighter squadrons (4 Gruppe => 12-16 Squadrons), with a Gruppe`s typical established strenght of 68 aircraft (inc. reserves) at that time.
LW strenght reports show for these last four Gruppe as per 9th April 1945 that 142 examples of G-10/K-4s were effected with the boost increase of 1.98ata, 79 of them being servicable at the time.
Considering the operational numbers of the perked Spitfire XIVs (5 Sqns, plus two recces for about 60-80 aircraft), it seems feasible to perk the 1.98ata 109K-4s and the Mk XIVs, leaving the basic 1.8ata K-4/G-10 a non perked plane, as it was quite widespread in the Luftwaffe (1700 being produced of K-4, 2600 of G-10).
Ie. bf 109 strenght 31 Jan 1945, first line units only :
Bf 109 G-6 : 71
Bf 109 G14 and G-14/U4 : 431
Bf 109 G-10, G-10/U4 and G-14/AS :568
Bf 109 G-10/R6 : 51 (bad weather version)
Bf 109 K-4 : 314
1435 Bf 109s
So 314 K-4s at the time Jan 1945, ca every 4th Bf 109 was K-4, probably increased further (Dec 1944 there was 200).
-
I think HTC should keep the current engine rating for spit 1 and 109E for balance purposes.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
That all depends... there were the G-14 with small supercharger, and the G-14/AS with the large(high alt) supercharger, the same one from DB 603G used on the G-10/K-4.
The G-14/AS and G-10 were almost identical in performance, ie. the former did 680 kph at 7.5km, the latter 685-690 at the same altitude. Of course the G-10 had the 605D engine, which could run either 1800/2000HP, while the G-14/AS`s 605ASM could only run at 1800HP (it was an interim solution to the 605D enigne)
Yup I mentioned the AS types here:
If AH does a true G-10 then it can fill in for the AS engined 109s.
Since the G-6/AS production wasn't that significant, at least not as many produced as the G-14/AS, the most logical AS to model would be the G-14/AS.
Since AH has the G-10 it would be reasonable to use the G-10 as a sub for the G-14. Doing a G-14/AS would be some what redundant provided in AH that they re-do the G-10s to match a true G-10 rather then the G-10/K-4 hybrid they have now.
So my suggest would be:
The one late war 109 AH needs is the 109G-14.
None AS of course.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I think HTC should keep the current engine rating for spit 1 and 109E for balance purposes.
Spit 1 is mainly used for the BoB scenario, Spits were rated 12lbs boost for the BoB. Could see your point if we were talking about the MkII that seen limited use during the final weeks.
Current 6lbs boost rating is a 1939 Spit, even then they quickly uprated it when the 100 fuel became readily available.
-
Would 109F-2 fit for this game?
1941 109F-2 has the same dimensions of 1942 109F-4, but F-2 has 15mm hub cannon and a bit less powerful engine.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Spit 1 is mainly used for the BoB scenario, Spits were rated 12lbs boost for the BoB. Could see your point if we were talking about the MkII that seen limited use during the final weeks.
Current 6lbs boost rating is a 1939 Spit, even then they quickly uprated it when the 100 fuel became readily available.
Ill have to disagree with you, Ive seen spit 1s and emils in the MA against my 38 and they turn out to be great 1v1s. More afraid of the emil though because of the cannon and it has great abilities turning with other planes. Before BoB started, about 2-3 weeks before 75% of the time I flew spit 1s and occasionaly the emil. I found that once I get on nme plane I will usually shoot them down especially I found that the spit 1 is great against ponies when you are actually going to close enough to shoot and make them turn and cv craft because cv craft are usually slow and low on the deck. Most people I see say that the spit 1 guns suck and I disagree because I found them to be very lethal. With flying the spit 1, I was able to get 2-3 kills each flight and occasionaly more but the problem was with the plane being slow that it was hard to get away from big fights and occasionaly I would be able to land those kills (got major perks for the kills, no less than 10 for 2 give or take the perk point bonus that night). I didnt fly the emil that much because I was on the British side of the scenario but when I did I found it a great early war plane to fly because of its turning capabilities. Its speed wasnt so great and the guns were halfway decent but it was great agaisnt pretty much any aircraft that was willing to fight.
When fighting rooks one night I encountered a emil and a dora coalt. I found that with the 2 vs my 38, the dora would just make the 1 pass haul *** type of thing. So when the dora would make a pass it would put its nose down under me and I would make a couple shots on the canopy area and it seems that after he made 3 passes it gave him a pilot wound because he just ran forgetting his emil buddy. The emil stayed the entire time willing to fight ever since they both engaged me and we ended up having a great 1v1. Forget the pilots name but whoever it was because that emil was a tough fight for my 38.
-
Only thing about a +25 boost 1944 Spit LF IX, is that we have the Spit XIV already. You cant use a +25 boost Spit in a 43-early 44 setup, where the LF IX is suposed to "fill". The Spit LF IX takes you from Spring 43-Fall 44 where you can add Tempests and Spit XIVs, and Mustang IIIs.
I think we will be lucky to get one additional model each of the Spit and 109, and the more exotic models get too late into 1944 sometimes to be usefull "gap fillers". Have a hard look at that.
If we get more than that hooray, but I would focus on one type, maybe two at the most, rather than an exhaustive laundry list of almost every varient and sub-type.
If you had ONE which would you pick?
*Btw all the fancy math calcs for perking planes is interesting, but HTC doesnt perk them or not based on what air force had X # operational vs Y x Z= whatever. They are perked for how "hot" they are as fighters, and the perk system is simply a "control valve" on over use in the MA. Its a judgement call that they make.
-
Squire,
That is why I favor the Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc at +18lbs boost and Bf109G-14 as the most complete gap coverage and reducing the Spitfire Mk Vb to +12lbs boost from +16lbs boost.
That is my minimalist take on it.
-
A Spit Vc @ 16lbs boost is a Spifire I would consider as 'needed' in AH.
16lbs was cleared in July/August '42.
The problem comes in if you try to do run anything prior to July/August '42.
I agree with Kurfürst in that a good set of match ups would be:
1941
Spit Vb, +12lbs, vs. 109F-2 MG151/15
1942
Spit Vc, +16lbs vs. 109F-4 MG 151/20 at 1.42ata
I owuld also get rid of the gondolas option for the 109F-4, they were hardly ever used.
But lets be honest HT and crew aren't to worried about 'match-ups' (or at least what we would consider good match-ups anyway).
Once they modelled the Spit V with 16lbs boost its gonna stay that way and I doubt they will model another Spit V.
I would guess the only new Spit (if you get one at all) will be some clipped-wing version of something.
I would also bet there is little chance in hell of seeing a G-14.
-
I think im actually leaning towards a Spit LF IXc at 18 lbs for TOD. Standard wingtips.
Just add the type they used for NW ETO, Spit LF IXc and be done with it.
If and when we ever get a PAC TOD, ask for the VIII then. It wont be for a while....
LF IX was also used in the Med, so its good there too.
If they want to add a second type, my pick would be a late 1944 Spit LF XVIE clipped wing with 25 lbs boost and the .50 caliber/20mm arm.
*Karnak, I was going to add there is something else to consider as well which has nothing to do with performance, but aesthetics. If TOD is going to be ETO...and we get a new Spit IX 3d model, wouldnt it be nice to have the skins for it be able to match the model? Otherwise you have a Spit VIII being skinned as a Spit IX. Ya its a small consideration, but I would kinda like to see a 443 Sqn RCAF Spit IX skin on the actual a/c.
-
Kurfy,
III./JG 27 has G-10s or K-4s? Your site lists one type in one part and the other type in another part.
"12. III./JG 27 Bf 109 G-10, no change, boost increase to 1.98 ata"
"III./JG 27, 19, 15, Bf 109 K and some 109 Gs"
To say that II./JG11 was equiped with K-4s is misrepresentation for "II. Gruppe of the Jagdgeschwader 11 than a pure combat unit, and which had eleven Bf 109K-4s and thirty-eight Bf 109G-14s on strenght (plus a single G-6/U2) on the 1st January 1945" This is only a staffel of K-4s.
To further that the K-4 @ 1.98 should be perked, Olivier Lefebvre " As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce."
-
Ehm, - this from Kurfie:
"1435 Bf 109s" in January 1945.
Seems a bit high, considering that it's a higher number than the number of launched aircraft (800+?) at operation Bodenplatte. Those were of more sorts, and had been saved for the operation.
And this from Squire, - pondering about it:
"Only thing about a +25 boost 1944 Spit LF IX, is that we have the Spit XIV already. You cant use a +25 boost Spit in a 43-early 44 setup, where the LF IX is suposed to "fill""
Our AH XIV is in the regard of climb, at least, a bit of an underdog compared to RL performance (Quill)
Take it to 20K, it's some 15-20% too slow on the clock, thereby being slower than the AH 109G2 and a RL Spit IX + 25, which made it to 20K in as little as 4 mins 50 secs or so.
So, a RL performing Spit IX with +25 would practically render the XIV we have useless, - less it would be promoted into a later type ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ehm, - this from Kurfie:
"1435 Bf 109s" in January 1945.
Seems a bit high, considering that it's a higher number than the number of launched aircraft (800+?) at operation Bodenplatte. Those were of more sorts, and had been saved for the operation.
LW OoB as of Jan 10 1945 has 1462 servicable single-engined fighters.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWOB45.html
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ehm, - this from Kurfie:
"1435 Bf 109s" in January 1945.
Seems a bit high, considering that it's a higher number than the number of launched aircraft (800+?) at operation Bodenplatte. Those were of more sorts, and had been saved for the operation.
Take the list what it is : a listing of on-hand Bf 109 (and other) types in Jan 1945. Keep in mind fighter production skyrocketed at that time, at the expense of other types, and about 2500-3000 of them were pumped out every month.
It includes servicable and non-servicable, but does not include secondline/reserve units. In the ENTIRE Luftwaffe, East just as well as in the West, Italy or even Norway. 109K units were of course, mostly on the West. From what I seen, servicability was on avarage 70% in 1944/45, but this figure was quite steady during the war, and I would except similiar or perhaps a bit better figures for the Allies.
And as for Bodenplatte, I don`t see any contradiction in 800 fighters being launched and 1400 being available (probably less, as this figure is for one month later), but some of that 1400 being somewhere, ie. in East Prussia or in northern Italy.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Squire,
That is why I favor the Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc at +18lbs boost and Bf109G-14 as the most complete gap coverage and reducing the Spitfire Mk Vb to +12lbs boost from +16lbs boost.
That is my minimalist take on it.
Still leaves a 1944/45 FREE Spit gap.
Thats why the XVI would be needed.
-
Gee, looks like the Spit has hit the fan...:D
hyuk hyuk (I kill me)
Magoo
-
We need a new sub-bb called "Order Of Battle" :) hehe. For all the "pen time" that we go on about it.
But I digress...
You know what would really work easiest? a Spit LF IXc with a "twin" (same 3d model, armament ect), but call it "Late-Spit LF IXc" and it has 25 lbs boost as a 2nd TAF fighter.
Then add a 109G-14 (based on the 109G-6 we have+ its special features) and your done.
Damn, I should work for HTC im too smart by 1/2.
-
Our AH XIV is in the regard of climb, at least, a bit of an underdog compared to RL performance (Quill)
Take it to 20K, it's some 15-20% too slow on the clock, thereby being slower than the AH 109G2 and a RL Spit IX + 25, which made it to 20K in as little as 4 mins 50 secs or so.
So, a RL performing Spit IX with +25 would practically render the XIV we have useless, - less it would be promoted into a later type
I've seen the former thread when you posted the results of this testing.
However, the claimed test speeds are in direct contradiction with AH1 charts.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1121376771_g2mk14climb.jpg)
The AH1 Spit14 outclimbs the Bf109G-2 at all altituces. The only alt range the Bf109G-2 even remotely comes close to the climb rate of the Spit14, is at 13~16k range.
Therefore, either charts are wrong, or your test is flawed. If it's the former, then it's a FM problem and HTC should correct it.
Another possibility is that the Bf109G-2 got a boost in climb rate with AH2. But my opinion is that it is HIGHLY unlikely that HTC would boost a plane and then not tell us about it.
Frankly Angus, I find it hard to believe that HTC would model in a plane and then put up a chart that does not match it.
-
Kweassa,
The Spitfire Mk XIV got an acceleration/climb rate reduction in AH2 and it's WEP expires at 5 minutes whereas the Bf109G-2 has 10 minutes of WEP.
-
It is true that using "WEP" for lack of a better term, does bring some of the "older" fighters closer into line with a later varient, but remember those stats are limited to the emergency settings only.
Ex. A Spit XIV can happily go at max "standard" boosts for quite some time, and easily outpace a LF IX on "standard" settings, with no worries about emergency limits.
If you were out hunting for low level Me262s over NW Europe, you would still be much better off in a Tempest or a XIV, compared to a IX. A LF IX for a short time can "go through the gate" at +25 lbs for an emergency run, but that doesnt make it equivilant to a XIV.
-
Wasn't Angus' test done during AH1 days? Or is it a lot later than that?
One thing for certain, we need those updated performance charts to be sure of anything.
Otherwise, a confirmation from HTC that some planes had their FMs changed so that speed/climb numbers were also changed, would be also good.
But to this date I've never actually seen HT confirming that some planes had their FM changed. We all know that attitude and feel of some planes did change, but was the change big enough to make former chart numbers moot?
-
Guys, are we all shure about this...? I've been reading this thread and we all have come up with great ideas for HTC's next update.
(next update)
list (some are copy-pasted in this thread)
SPITFIRES
-Spit Ia (CS, 100 octane)
-Spit 5b (+12 boost only)
-Spitfire F.Mk IXc (remove the options for the .50 cals, rockets and 250lb bombs, otherwise keep it as it is with Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost.)
-Spit LF VIII b (Merlin 66 Std boost, broad chord pointed rudder, possibly short span ailerons)
-Spit LF XVIe (Merlin 266 25lbs boost, clipped wings, broad chord pointy tail, and just for aesthetics a bubble canopy.)
-Spit F XIV c (Our current but increase to 21lbs boost (make perks worth it)
-Seafire 3 (replace seafire 2 with this)
Bf-109s
-109 E-4/N (the counterpart for spitfire 1 100 octane)
-109 F-4 (remove the GONDOLAS to reflect the "real" 109Fs)
-109 G-2
-109 G-6
-109 G-10 (Edit: use different eng for 109G-10, otherwise keep the current G-10 and add 109G-14)
-109 K-4 (at 1.80ata and MK 108. Edit: we might not neeed the K-4 if HTC keeps the current 109G-10)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like we're done with spits and 109s. How about the Fw-190s? It seems there's (IMHO) a gap and flight/speed/climb conflicts on some 190 models.
-
1K3,
Well, "Bf109G-10" does not describe a stardardized model. Some Bf109G-10s were on par with the Bf109G-14 and some on par with the Bf109K-4 and some in between. It depended on which engine and what changes to the airframe that they had. The Bf109K-4 was created to standardize the Bf109 production on one model that incorporated all of the improvements in the various late G models and submodels.
On that count our Bf109G-10 is just a very top end Bf109G-10 and that happens to pretty well match the Bf109K-4 in performance. The advantage that doing it with the Bf109G-10 instead of the Bf109K-4 is that it allows the 20mm gun option for people who prefer it to the 30mm gun.
-
Nice list IK3, but its doubtfull we will see such a large # of varients included. We can dream though.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Kweassa,
The Spitfire Mk XIV got an acceleration/climb rate reduction in AH2 and it's WEP expires at 5 minutes whereas the Bf109G-2 has 10 minutes of WEP.
The Spit`s 5mins I understand. 5mins was max for combat power.
Now the G-2... what power does it runs? 3min was for 1.42ata WEP (which was not allowed for a time in it`s real service), 30min for 1.3ata military.
10 mins may come from the allowed limit of operation for db605a at 115 celsius...
-
I made my climb test in AH II.
109G2 is basically on par with Spitfire XIV, and the XIV is somewhat slower to 20K than 5 minutes.
A mk IX on +25 will top that, although not having the same top speed mind you.
I'll try to find the time to check again, can't find the numbers at the moment.
Or, of course, if anyone of you guys has some time, feel welcome. Always pressed for time you see.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spit`s 5mins I understand. 5mins was max for combat power.
Now the G-2... what power does it runs? 3min was for 1.42ata WEP (which was not allowed for a time in it`s real service), 30min for 1.3ata military.
10 mins may come from the allowed limit of operation for db605a at 115 celsius...
Yes, the Spit's time is correct, but it's performance seems subpar for a Mk XIV.
I don't know what ata the Bf109G-2 is at though. I'll see if I can find it for you tonight if somebody else doesn't post it first.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Nice list IK3, but its doubtfull we will see such a large # of varients included. We can dream though.
if HTC wants to keep the lineup simple, they can just throw 1943 (or 1944) Spitfire LF IX and 1944 Bf-109G-14. Little mods can be made for these 2 xtra variants.
Just chop few feet of spit F 9 wings and add a bit more powerful Merlin engine then you'll have spit LF 9. Add 109G-6 with MW-50 and you'll have a G-14.
2 easy add-ons, but still leaves some gaps.
If HTC decides to add spit LF 8 and LF 16, there's no need to add spit LF 9
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spit`s 5mins I understand. 5mins was max for combat power.
The 5 min was only a suggested limited. The time limit depended on the oil and water temperatures. Unlike the DBs which would have bad things happen after 10 minutes, the Merlin/Griffon could be safely go past the 5 minutes.
-
So if I take you correctly, exceeding the time limit for oil and water temperatures with the Merlin would absolutely put the pilot to no danger, while doing the very same on the DBs would immidately kill everybody in a 10km radius? Of course. How biased you are.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
So if I take you correctly, exceeding the time limit for oil and water temperatures with the Merlin would absolutely put the pilot to no danger, while doing the very same on the DBs would immidately kill everybody in a 10km radius? Of course. How biased you are.
The limit was for maintainance reasons, not overheating reasons. Many, many documents verify this.
I've no idea what "bad" things he is claiming would happen to the DB though.
-
I wonder if the Merlin has similiar manuals like the DB has (not only the aircraft manuals). That would clear up the issue.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
So if I take you correctly, exceeding the time limit for oil and water temperatures with the Merlin would absolutely put the pilot to no danger, while doing the very same on the DBs would immidately kill everybody in a 10km radius? Of course. How biased you are.
Again your reading comprehension is lacking, as well as your flair for the melodramatic.
So you can understand better. If the temp limits were not reached in 5 minutes then the engine could be run longer at WEP, that is until the temp limits were reached.
When are you going to sort out the G-10/K-4 conflict in you article?
-
Its silly to think that either a Merlin or a DB, or an Allison would "blow up" if they exceeded their "wep" limits.
For one thing in the middle of a dogfight, there is no real way to say "gee, has it been 5 min yet?" or "gee has it been 10 min yet?"
The limits are operational "approximations" of what they were asked to keep them to in order not to burn through too many engines in a given month. Im sure some pilots were "bad" at that.
In AH, too many players would abuse it, because there is no "real world" penalty for continually going over-limit, and so HTC decided with an "auto-shutoff" system for gameplay. It makes sense too.
After you land in AH we dont get an angry CO demanding to know why the mechanics have told him for the 3rd time that month that you have cooked out your fighters expensive powerplant.
-
I dug up something about a Merlin that was run on "panic boost" some 30 minutes past it's max time. The pilot had to make a run or something, and freaked out a bit.
The engine was dismantled and reassembled, because it was in completely good condition!
I did post this sometime, but don't see it at the moment. Think it was in the MTO.
Anyway, what 1K3 said:
"If HTC decides to add spit LF 8 and LF 16, there's no need to add spit LF 9"
True, - if it is a Mk VIII on +25, there is no need for a +25 Mk IX ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
True, - if it is a Mk VIII on +25, there is no need for a +25 Mk IX ;)
:confused:
I thought Mk. VIII would cover for '43 and Mk. XVI for '44...
-
A mk IX is not just a Mk IX.
The one we have is the first type, specialized rather for the really high-up jobs.
The later marks were tuned up in the boost business, and with some fiddling with the turbines, more power is available at low altitude.
The Mk IX LF on +25 with a Merlin 66 or 70 is about the ultimate Merlin engined Spitfire.
But the VIII had this too, along with a lot more internal fuel.
I am not so sure about the boost for the Mk VIII, but I feel that it was not too common with +25
-
Originally posted by 1K3
:confused:
I thought Mk. VIII would cover for '43 and Mk. XVI for '44...
I was playing with boost clearances and mark numbers to keep the simple mark number identifications that HTC seems to prefer.
A Spitfire LF.Mk VIII cleared for +25lbs boost would not be suitable for 1943, so I suggest a Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc only cleared for +18lbs boost. The Mk XVI is the same as an LF.Mk IX, but powered by an American built Merlin 266 instead of a British built Merlin 66 and those are the same engine other than country of manufacture. Once again, using the Mk XVI allows the simple mark number to be used without any letter modifiers so that you have the Mk IX at +15lbs boost with a Merlin 61 being labeled distinctly from a Mk XVI with a Merlin 266 at +25lbs boost instead of two Mk IXs, one with the Merlin 61 and one with the Merlin 66 at +25lbs boost.
-
I don`t get the quiblle over the MkIX and MkVIII. The latter has practically nothing to offer above the MkIX in performance, they are almost perfect matches mph to mph, fpm to fpm. If anything, the MkVIII is heavier, so I guess it was little less manouverable.
It`s only plus would be the increased fuel capacity and range (to 120 gallons and 740 miles on internal vs. 85g/434miles of the mkIX), but I guess this means little to nothing in AH, unlike in real life...
-
The VIII has very much more fuel while offering the same speed and climb performance. It is a tad heavier.
There were some aerodynamic modifications that seperated it from the IX, as well as some fixes of other brands.
Overall, the VIII was considered (with the same wingspan) to be a better aircraft.
And as engines, you have Merlin 66 or 70, - the 70 giving a better altitude performance.
A good Mk VIII is simply the ultimate Merlin equipped Spitfire, while still a IX, clipped and cropped would be the ultimate geek fighter down lower in AH
-
Kurfurst,
AH labels the Spitfires in simple mark numbers right now with no letter itentifiers like F, HF or LF. I suggest the Mk VIII as the Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost so that can be kept without confusing people with the sudden change of seeing a Spitfire F.Mk IXc and a Spitfire LF.Mk IXc and a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe on the list. Going with Spitfire Mk IX for the Merlin 61 Spit, Spitfire Mk VIII for the Merlin 66 at +18lbs Spit and Spitfire Mk XVI for the Merlin 266 at +25lbs Spit.
Either would work, but i was trying to accomodate the current Spitfire labeling.
-
Karnak, I think it's high time the labelling scheme should change.
Since the Brits done so wacky method of labelling planes :D, with the possible introduction of new Spitfires, and possibly another MkIX (since we got no guarantees we'd receive a VIII or not..), the only way to get rid of confusion and purge the AH roster of historic inconsistencies, is to advocate a much more strict labelling scheme.
A Bf109G-1, G-2, G-4, G-6, G-10, G-14 is still a "Gustav". There are multiple Gustavs in the AH roster and nobody ever confuses anything about it.
However, if we get another Spit9, how is HTC gonna ever explain the difference betweem the new Spit9 and the old Spit9, without resorting to historically strict labelling schemes?
...
Under that premise, as it is, I think there should be two SpitVs in the game. These should be labelled;
Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('41)
Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('42)
The former would be the old AH1 SpitV at +12. The latter would be our AH2 SpitV at +16. There is no reason why there should not be two SpitVs IMO.
Also, our Spit9 should be labelled;
Spitfire F.MK.IXc ('42)
.. and removed of the rockets, and 50cal option. Make it a real '42 Spit I say... and since they'll be redoing Spits, it's high time to ask for a '43 Spitfire to fill the gap. I mean, we got three 109 Gustavs... so no reason why there can't be a HF, LF, F, Spit9s/5s...
Since the roster should be purged of hybrid inaccuracies, I also think that our current Bf109G-10 should be redone.
Make it a real G-10, instead of the pseudo-G-10 with K-4 specs. Lower the top speed, and relabel it to a G-10 as it should be. And then, the K-4 should be a separate plane, with only MK108 as standard weapon, and this plane should be perked.
-
Why perk the K-4, unless it`s a full powered version?
a, It was around in large numbers, and pretty common model late in the war
b, Besides, why perk the K-4 and the G-10 not, which only differs from it being a bit slower?
What boost they have is another question...
Other : Karnak is making quite some sense with those Spitty variants...mk9/ merlin61/+15 for 1942, mk8/66/+18 for `43, mkxvie/66/+25 for 44/45...
-
Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('41)
Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('42)
Actually it would be more practical to see:
Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('41) 12lbs
Spitfire F.MK.Vc ('42) 16lbs
-
We don't need two Spitfire Mk Vs. It is unreasonable to expect to have two unless HTC decides to go IL:2's route and add varients willy nilly.
And the Bf109G-10 is a proper Bf109G-10. It was not a standardized designation. We just have one of the top end Bf109G-10s.
-
Sure you need both, we both know you won't get both but you AH still needs them...
If the Scheißefeuer fans get anthing it will be a 'KeWl bOi' Spifire LF.MK IX clipped wing.
-
Karnak, taking a hint from IL2/FB's naming scheme doesn't necessarily mean AH needs to go the exact same way. I'm certainly no Spitfan.. but I think I'm actually pretty objective and neutral when it comes down to these stuff. IMO the Spitfire is pretty unique, and it needs to be represented as it is.
While other countries would add a different suffix at the tail end to differentiate each of the sub-variants, the Spitfires didn't go that way. The generic term "Spitfire MkV" is about as equal as the also generic term "Bf109G".
Between the timeline of 1941 and 1943 the Bf109s went through F-2, F-4, G-2. and G-6.. just to name the major subvariants. But the Spitfire MK.V didn't go that way. They went the way of LF, HF, F, and continous upgrades in performance but still retained their name, until the Spit9 began replacing them.
So, I don't really think its unreasonable to ask for multiple Spit5s and multiple Spit9s and such. The Bf109G, through 1943 to 1944, evolved from Bf109G-6 to Bf109G-14. Much the same, the SpitfireMkV, from 1941 to 1942, would just simply evolve from the Spitfire F.MK.Vb(+12) to Spitfire F.MK.Vc(+16).
The Gustavs have 3 different models in the game. We're currently asking for a fourth - G-14. So I see no reason why we cannot have a 1941 Spit5 side by side with a late 1942 Spit5.
....
As for the Bf109G-10, IIRC there is no data on earth that exists confirming that a Bf109G-10 would do 452mph at 22k. Some Bf109G-10s did have the more powerful DCM engine, but most of the Bf109G-10s used the DBM engine, and it's top speed is usually commented at 690km/h(428mph) at 24,500ft.
In other words, our G-10 is not a G-10 at all. It's not even a "top end G-10", because no such data exists for this plane. It's a K-4, and literally.
It's like the IL2/FB Fw190A-9 - a plane that did exist, presumably with very high performance, but no data exists on this plane's performance at all.. and yet, the IL2/FB team decided to just model that plane, based upon guesstimates.
AH was young, the plane set was still small. There was lot to be done, and many more planes to be added. Pyro didn't have the time to put in two late-war Bf109s, so he just tries to kill two birds with one stone, by naming a K-4 to "G-10" and giving it MG151/20 option for the hub cannon.
However, since the opportunity is rising now, to correct the various flaws in the planesets, I say do away with the temporary compromises and hybrids once and for all!
The standard Bf109G-6, is quoted at about 622~640km/h(387~397km/h) at 21,000ft.
The G-14 with the DB605AM, the top speed is usually quoted 665km/h(413mph) at 18.000ft.
And finally, the real K-4, is the only one quoted at true-blue 452mph.
-
So, I present you, the really really complete line up of best AH2 Bf109s and Spitfires, IMHO.
* Spitfire lineup is from Karnak.
* SpitVb/Vc idea is from ramzey.
- Spitfires-
Spitfire MK.Ia ('40)
Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('41)
Spitfire F.Mk.Vc ('42)
Spitfire F.Mk IXc ('42)
Spitfire LF.MK.VIIIc ('43)
Spitfire LF.MK.XVIe ('44)
Spitfire F.MK.XIVe ('44) (perked)
7 planes, representing 5 years of combat
Notes:
* Spitfire F.MK.Vb('41) will be restricted to the 'b-wing' armament option. Total 120 rounds of 20mm cannons(60rpg)
* Spitfire F.MK.Vc('42) will be allowed the use of the 'universal wing' armament options. It will be given a hangar armament option of;
a) 8x 30cal
b) 4x 30cal + 2x 20mm(120rpg)
The 4x 20mm option for all the Spitfire variants with 'c' wings, is open for debate.
*The Spitfire F.Mk IXc ('42) will be removed of bombs, rockets, and M2 50cals.
*The Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc will use the Merlin 66 engine, full length Universal wing. It will substitute the 1943 LF.Mk IX, as well as be suitable for Med. and Pac. theater usage.
*The Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe, will use the 1580 hp Packard R.R. Merlin266 at +25lbs Boost. Clipped wings, bubble canopy, and "E" wing option, with M2 50cals available. It's performance is between the Spit8 and the Spit14, and will be the best performing, free Spitfire.
*The Spitfire F.Mk XIV, will be raised to +21lbs boost to justify it's perked status and keep it as the ultimate Spitfire in AH.
- Bf109s-
Bf109E-4 ('40)
Bf109F-4 ('41)
Bf109G-2 ('42)
Bf109G-6 ('43)
Bf109G-14 ('44)
Bf109G-10 ('44)
Bf109K-4 ('44) (perked)
7 planes, representing five years of combat
Notes:
* All the Bf109 models(E-4~G-6), that does not use MW50, will be corrected in the WEP duration time, shortened to 5 minutes.
* The Bf109G-14, will use the DB605AM. MW50, 10min. WEP duration. 414mph max. speed
* The Bf109G-10, will be using the DB605DBM, 428mph top speed. This will the best performing free Bf109.
* The Bf109K-4, will be modelled separately from the G-10 - different engine cowl, fully retractable tail wheel.
This model will retain the former AH G-10 top speed of 452mph, and become the ultimate Bf109. It will be perked. Perhaps, inclusion of rare equipment such as Fletnners, or type U6 option with 2x MK108 wing gondolas could be justified, due to the newly introduced perk prices.
-
The list above looks very, very good.
-
Vc should be the LF not F version.
-
Can someone tell me what a Spitfire Mk IXB is? ;)
-
It's like the IL2/FB Fw190A-9 - a plane that did exist, presumably with very high performance, but no data exists on this plane's performance at all.. and yet, the IL2/FB team decided to just model that plane, based upon guesstimates.
Hey Karnak,
Just to inform:
Lots of information exist´s on the FW-190A9 and its performance. In fact I have several copies of the BMW801TS service manuals, including a handwritten edition copied during classes on it given at the Geschwaders.
Over 43 BMW801TS motors have been identified from recovered wrecks.
What I do not have is a clear boost progression on the engine.
The manual gives the following engine limits:
5 minutes at 1.65ata/2700U min = Start und Notleistung
30 minutes at 1.45ata/2500U min = Steig und Kampfleistung
Also stated in the manual, "An additional power boost (Boost pressure increase or C3 / specialadditive injection) is not intended for the BMW 801 S-1."
The printed manual is dated Nov 1944. The handwritten notes are dated July 1944.
Two additional reports which I have recieved to examine yet are about the need to increase performance in the engine and what was done to increase performance.
However both anecdotal evidence from FW190 pilots and physical evidence points to 1.72ata-1.82ata being cleared as the "Erhöhte Notleistung" for this motor sometime before Jan 1945.
FW-190A9 performance without "Erhöhte Notleistung":
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121307082_fw190a8_a9vsta152speed.jpg)
More FW-190A9´s were produced than FW-190A3´s to put it perspective.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by justin_g
Can someone tell me what a Spitfire Mk IXB is? ;)
The IXa / IXb designation was used by RAF units to distinguish between the low alt optimized LF.IX with the Merlin 66, i.e. MkIXb, from the standard F.IX with the Merlin 61 / 63 / 63a, i.e. MkIXa.
Spitfire F.IX or unofficially 'IXa'
Spitfire LF.IX or unofficially 'IXb'
Crumpp you are attributing a quote from Kweassa's post to Karnak.
Kweassa there is data avaiable for the 190A-9, the FB A-9 isn't just 'made-up'.
Vc should be the LF not F version.
Kweassa's list is fine as is but lets keep it real. HTC isn't going to do 2 variants of the Spit V, whether they be LF.Vc's or what ever.
Why you are 'wishing' why not ask for a clipped wing Spitfire LF.Vc as well....
It fugs up Kweassa's time table a bit though...
-
Crumpp you are attributing a quote from Kweassa's post to Karnak.
Oops. Sorry I just posted too quick.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Erm, Crump, I am aware that the Fw190A-9 existed and there is data on it.
-
We already have a clipped Spit IX +25, and it's around the MA in ample numbers.
It's called La-7 :D
-
Erm, Crump, I am aware that the Fw190A-9 existed and there is data on it.
There is flight tested data as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I stand corrected.
Thank you Crumpp/Wotan. :aok
...
Wotan, perhaps its best we not judge HTC by our past experiences alone. :) They did a lot of things we think they'd just not do.
IMO AH1 was just a passing point, development of their basic infrastructures. They wanted it strict and under control, and often gave out the impression that they don't really listen to player opinions.
But recently... I see HTC is more lenient to listen to what the gamers have to offer.
I mean... in AH2, they changed the icon ideas to what people have been discussing for a long time, albeit in a compromised fashion - limited distance icons.
And then, even better, they recently also added in the idea the players suggested. Tas and Temps, F4U-4s and such, show up as just "190", "Typh", "F4U" at long distances.
Also, HT listened to some of my very hasty ideas as well.. before the current AH terrain was done, I suggested a quick change in sky colors and terrain colors to help it look more real. To my surprise, HT almost immediately responded and had the idea implemented in the game. Wow!
And remember the Ki-84 WEP discussions.. and the Fw190 forward view discussions, too! HT and Pyro listened to that as well.
...
As long as the idea is good, I think we have a very very good chance of seeing it implemented in AH2 nowadays.
And the Spitfire roster ideas... reasonable Spitfans have been discussing it for years. The list Karnak came up with, seems the optimum for representing Spitfires, the ultimate amalgam of past Spitfire discussions reaching a single result. As for the 109 roster, well, that's just a personal opinion, but I can't think of anything better than that.
So let's try to keep our hopes up! :)
-
Those lists are well thought by Karnak, and HTC rocks also !
-
More spits ? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
dont your spitards have enough?
and forget about more 109s while ya at it.
Both are over represented already.
get more nip birds and ju52
GET REAL.
-
AmRaaM,
Do you know anything aboout Spitfire or Bf109 development in WWII?
Didn't think so.
Do you know why the line up we have, regardless of the numbers, is not functional?
Didn't think so.
In short, if you don't have any clue as to what you are talking about you had best not open your mouth and reveal yourself to be an idiot.
-
Wotan, perhaps its best we not judge HTC by our past experiences alone. They did a lot of things we think they'd just not do.
It's not just 'past experiences'. Look at the current new plane. Another late-war Ami 'kEwL bOi' plane.
It's not that AH didn't need another jug, it did (and still does). We both know what variant.
Didn't they just re-do the 190s? Isn't there at least one variant of 190 that AH (ToD) 'needed'? However, it wasn't 'kEwL' enough.
What new Spitfire variant (if any) do you think they will add?
My guess is a clipped wing Spit LF.IX because it's 'kEwL'.
If HT had any intention on adding a second Spit V they would have done so as AH2 was entering beta. After all they had 're-done' the Spits (and for that matter the 109s) already. That's when they added the 16lbs boost to the current Spit V.
So its not just past experiences alone. It's currently 'ongoing'.
Don't hold your breath on a G-14 either...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
It's not just 'past experiences'. Look at the current new plane. Another late-war Ami 'kEwL bOi' plane.
It's not that AH didn't need another jug, it did (and still does). We both know what variant.
Didn't they just re-do the 190s? Isn't there at least one variant of 190 that AH (ToD) 'needed'? However, it wasn't 'kEwL' enough.
What new Spitfire variant (if any) do you think they will add?
My guess is a clipped wing Spit LF.IX because it's 'kEwL'.
If HT had any intention on adding a second Spit V they would have done so as AH2 was entering beta. After all they had 're-done' the Spits (and for that matter the 109s) already. That's when they added the 16lbs boost to the current Spit V.
So its not just past experiences alone. It's currently 'ongoing'.
Don't hold your breath on a G-14 either...
Redoing the Spits doesn't have to neccesarily include a new variant.
The biggest complaint seems to be that we don't have the, by far, dominant Spit IX variant, as in the LFIX. This being the main RAF Spit from 43-45.
Certainly when looking at the MA, a clipped Spit would be nice since it's a low alt war in there.
But I think the notion that it's wanted because its "Kewl" is unfair. Speaking as a Spit fan, I want the best representative line up.
That would also include revamping the Spit V to the Spit Vb of the 41-42 period with the lower cannon ammo load, and reduced engine performance.
The suggestion of a Spit LFVIII has more to do with scenario use and skinning possibilites then anything else. Certainly it could be lived without should we get an LFIX, but doing a clipped wing LFIXe and and LFVIII with the standard wings and universal armament adds to the variety and potential scenario/TOD use too.
But I'd also unperk the Spit XIV as the D9 was it's counterpart and not perked.
That way you'd have the main adversaries from beginning to end in the LW vs RAF fight.
Right now it's not balanced that way at all.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
(off topic on the 109-spitfire subject but...)
would 190s be also part of the so-called LW vs RAF "arms race"?
(i can't resist but...)
is it possible thayt we can get 190A-9 (same exterior as F-8) and F-3 (ground attack variant A-5 airframe)?
-
7 spit variants at once?!?! Balderdash!
Spit 1 is necessary. You can't have a flight sim without it, because everybody has so much fun flying BOB setups.
SpitV is necessary, but why a super charged over powered UFO of an uber plane? REMOVE the Vc, INTRODUCE the Vb. Rate it back down to what a spit5 should be (YES there were several SpitVs, but the most important when it came out was the Vb, it started turning the tide against 109s)
SpitIX is probably more well-known than the VIII. There were also LF, F, and HF variants, and clipped wing, etc. Correct the visual problems we have on our Spit F.IXe, and make it into a Spit F.IXc. This would counter the new threat of the 190a5 (which is historically correct, and what the SpitIX is so well known for).
We then have the spitXIV. I don't like it. For all that it reportedly WAS, it is NOT in AH. So I say trash it.
For the late war spit, the Spit LF.IXe should be added (bombs, 4x303 or 2x50cal options), and NO spit should be perked.
What does this do? REMOVES the dweebfire, and replaces it with one people can fly with honor (Vc replaced with Vb). Leaves high-alt kick-ass spit (F.IXc) to tangle at alt should any pilot feel the desire, and gives a mid-to-low alt super spit with increased roll rate.
Those 4 spits are the best representatives of the spit family.
No need for more. Add the XIV back as a realistic XIV if you want. But don't make it flounder for no reason like our current one does. Real XIV had the same performance as a V, only better in climb and at alt. Perk that, should it be added.
-
Krusty,
That leaves at least one hole in the time line.
You have either covered 1944/45 with a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe at +25lbs boost or you have covered 1943/44 with a Spitfire LF.Mk IXc at +18lbs boost. Either way you leave a gap.
And you also left out the Seafire. Add that in and you are at 5 Spits, only two less than what is needed for good, comprehensive coverage. Covering your gap, say a Spitfire LF.Mk IXc at +18lbs for 1943/44 and a Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe at +25lbs for 1944/45 bring it up to 6 Spits as the bare minimum to cover WWII and that leaves the more than 1000 Griffon Spits that saw service completely unrepresented.
So the absolute, bare minimum is five Spitfires and one Seafire for six Spits in total.
And personally I can't see giving up the Spitfire Mk XIV.
-
Redoing the Spits doesn't have to neccesarily include a new variant.
For ToD to attract out side of the current AH player base there can be none of the 'substitution roulette' that is the mainstay of AH events, scenarios and in the CT will work.
So what needs to happen is that the holes get filled on all sides so that you put on something that closer resembles what took place in real life.
The biggest complaint seems to be that we don't have the, by far, dominant Spit IX variant, as in the LFIX. This being the main RAF Spit from 43-45.
The biggest complaint is the gigantic holes in the plane set that limit the possibilities of ToD.
A Spitfire LF.IX or Spitfire LF.VIII would fill holes in the plane set. So would a true Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('41 @ 12lbs) and a separate Spitfire F.Mk.Vc ('42 @ 16lbs).
The above fixes right there would go a long way to covering almost all the holes.
I am reasonably certain that there will be no new Spit V.
Certainly when looking at the MA, a clipped Spit would be nice since it's a low alt war in there.
But I think the notion that it's wanted because its "Kewl" is unfair. Speaking as a Spit fan, I want the best representative line up.
No one said that any clipped wing Spit is a 'kEwL bOi' plane. What I said was that looking at past and current examples of what planes get added to AH very little goes into looking at what is really needed verses what is 'kEwL'. The P-47N is a perfect example of 'kEwL' over substance'. Does AH need a new variant of P-47? Sure but not a limited late war monster that doesn't fill any hole at all. A P-47C or D-5 (-ADI) would have went along way to making a '43 WETO theater better. Now there is no early/mid '43 jug that means D-11s through out or skip early/mid '43.
The main is never going to get any better then it is now. Game play in the main is what it is and will be 'till AH folds.
However, if ToD is going to prove better then the CT or any of the other events then it needs to work at getting things right to attract more subscribers. There are a ton of alternatives to AH's ToD. All can be played with out a subscription.
That would also include revamping the Spit V to the Spit Vb of the 41-42 period with the lower cannon ammo load, and reduced engine performance.
Restricting the AH Spit V to 12lbs is no more fair then forcing the LW fans to fight one at 16lbs through out the Spit Vs service range.
What would be fair to both is to add another. We know that's not likely.
The suggestion of a Spit LFVIII has more to do with scenario use and skinning possibilities then anything else. Certainly it could be lived without should we get an LFIX, but doing a clipped wing LFIXe and and LFVIII with the standard wings and universal armament adds to the variety and potential scenario/TOD use too.
Well this misses my point entirely. Its not a matter of 'suggestions' its a matter of what gets added. You are more likely to see them put out a Spitfire LF.IX with clipped wings then anything else. If you get anything it will be a single Spit , and the 'kEwLeSt' one at that. So weighing the odds that would mean a Spitfire LF.IX with clipped wings.
Remember it has taken 4+ years just to get the planes AH has now. Making the assumption that 'well maybe next time' just doesn't reflect reality.
But I'd also unperk the Spit XIV as the D9 was it's counterpart and not perked.
That way you'd have the main adversaries from beginning to end in the LAW vs RAF fight.
Right now it's not balanced that way at all.
You would think that as more variants become available that the perk system would expand. The perk system as it stands is just pointless with a few exceptions.
The Spit 14 and D-9 were hardly main adversaries. But here we have the same problem with the 109s. With the G-10 / K-4 452mph hybrid it is wholly unfair to the Allied fans to force them into fighting the AH G-10 from June/July '44 onward.
If as Kweassa and others suggest HTC does both a 'real G-10' and a 'real K-4' then add a G-14 you would have 109 performing from around 415-430 mph. The 452 K-4 would be the very late variant (the G-10 could fill in for the AS engined 109s).
What ends up happening now is you get a mid/late '44 event where the '43 G-6 fights all late war allied aircraft.
That is equally unfair to LW fans.
With the addition of the '38s it appeared that HTC was specifically targeting holes in planes set. I applauded them and had made many a post requesting and/or suggesting earlier 38 variants.
With the P-47N we see that it was just a coincidence and nothing much in terms of what planes gets added has changed.
Don't get me wrong I am completely indifferent to the P-47 in general. Its great for those P-47 folk. I just think ToD would have been better served with a D-5 or C.
Same with the Spits. Outside of ToD I could careless about Spits. I think that to make the game work and to build a reasonable player base some consideration needs to be given to theater/plane match-ups.
would 190s be also part of the so-called LW vs RAF "arms race"?
1K3,
No because the 190s have already been done. An A-3 and an A-6 were asked for just prior to the 190s being reworked.
We don't late war planes. An A-9 would be 'kEwL' but you can't build a whole new type of game based simply on the last 6 months of WW2.
For the others who post with out reading the thread or who don't understand the context of whats being discussed please start your own thread. I assure most of us wont intrude.
-
Wotan,
I would love to see:
Spitfire Mk Ia
Spitfire Mk Vb
Spitfire Mk Vc
Seafire L.Mk III
Spitfire F.Mk IXc
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII or Spitfire LF.Mk IXc
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe or Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe
Spitfire F.Mk XIV
Bf109E-4
Bf109F-2
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14
Bf109G-10
Bf109K-4
Fw190A-3
Fw190F-3
Fw190A-4 or Fw190A-5
Fw190A-8 early (12bladed Lufterrad 801D2 without 1.58ata/1.65ata)
Fw190F-8
Fw190A-9 (BMW801TH)
Fw190D-9
Ta152H-1
But I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, if at all.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Krusty,
That leaves at least one hole in the time line.
That's the problem right there... I'm not planning it on a timeline. I'm planning it off of major versions that had the most impact, were the most distinctive (I'm not concerned at all that the spit8 was produced more than the spit9, the spit9 came out first, and was the pivotal upgrade to fight off the new 190s). It's the same reason we don't have a 190a6, a 190a7, a 190a9.. They just weren't important. Heck even the 190a3 isn't important. We have key versions that played the biggest roles (biggest = most important) when they came out.
So what if there's a gap in the years? The performance is nearly identical, regardless. Don't put in new versions just to round out the timeframe. Put in new versions for better performance balance.
Consequently, that's one reason I dislike the new P47N decision. There's no reason for it. But that's my 2 cents.
There's no reason to have a spitfire for every year of the war.
-
Krusty,
You wholly misunderstood my post.
First I didn't even mention the Spit VIII in my response to you.
Second the problem is that the gaps I refer to are performance gaps, not time gaps. The time gaps simply coincide with the performance gaps. They are not slight differences either. The P-15B and P-51D are much more similar to one another than any of the Spitfires I mentioned in my reply to you.
You may think that there is little performance difference, but that is only because you are not as familiar with the marks, engines and boost levels in question.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
That's the problem right there... I'm not planning it on a timeline. I'm planning it off of major versions that had the most impact, were the most distinctive (I'm not concerned at all that the spit8 was produced more than the spit9, the spit9 came out first, and was the pivotal upgrade to fight off the new 190s). It's the same reason we don't have a 190a6, a 190a7, a 190a9.. They just weren't important. Heck even the 190a3 isn't important. We have key versions that played the biggest roles (biggest = most important) when they came out.
So what if there's a gap in the years? The performance is nearly identical, regardless. Don't put in new versions just to round out the timeframe. Put in new versions for better performance balance.
Consequently, that's one reason I dislike the new P47N decision. There's no reason for it. But that's my 2 cents.
There's no reason to have a spitfire for every year of the war.
Regarding the Spit LFVIII. Keep in mind it's importance overall. It was the first of the Merlin 60 series Spits that was tropicalized for use in the Med and Pacific. It was the primary high performance Spit in those areas.
I also look at the VIII from the view point of the skinners as it would be the bird with the widest variety of schemes that could be used historically.
TOD may make it to the MTO, CBI or Pacific someday. The VIII would be the Spit for those theaters.
It also allows for a full span Merlin 66 Spit with a universal wing, to go with a potential clipped wing LFIXe/XVIe.
Personally I'd skip the FIX all together
Dan/CorkyJr
-
That is true Dan.
Spitfire Mk Ia
Spitfire Mk Vb
Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe
Spitfire F.Mk XIV
Seafire L.Mk III
That leaves the performance of Spitfires in 1942 below what they were, but it does give the Luftwaffe fans a chance to run wild with their new Fw190s and have fun.
-
Personally I'd skip the FIX all together
I doubt HT is going to get rid of an aircraft.
In terms of performance there's not that much difference between a MK XI and MK VIII.
They could basically stand in for each other. Overall I think a VIII would be the better choice but much like the single variant V I doubt HT will model both a Spitfire LF.Mk VIII and a Spitfire LF.Mk IX (clipped wing or not).
These threads are just 'wishful rationalizing'. We hope we get one thing and attempt to rationalize it as if 'its the one that is needed'.
If we follow that line then there's a good argument to 'wish' for the following Spitfire line up in AH:
Spitfire Mk Ia
Spitfire Mk Vb (@ 12 lbs)
Spitfire Mk Vc (@ 16 lbs)
Spitfire F.Mk IX
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII / Spitfire LF.Mk IX
Spitfire F.Mk XIV
All should have historic load outs, performance etc...
The Spitfire F.MK IX would still have a 'function' in ToD. If ToD comes close to being 'more then the CT' then the altitude advantage the F.IX has over the others will mean it gets good use.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The Spitfire F.MK IX would still have a 'function' in ToD. If ToD comes close to being 'more then the CT' then the altitude advantage the F.XI has over the others will mean it gets good use.
Typo Wotan, for the XI was an unarmed PR Spit?
-
yup typo...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I doubt HT is going to get rid of an aircraft.
In terms of performance there's not that much difference between a MK XI and MK VIII.
They could basically stand in for each other. Overall I think a VIII would be the better choice but much like the single variant V I doubt HT will model both a Spitfire LF.Mk VIII and a Spitfire LF.Mk IX (clipped wing or not).
These threads are just 'wishful rationalizing'. We hope we get one thing and attempt to rationalize it as if 'its the one that is needed'.
If we follow that line then there's a good argument to 'wish' for the following Spitfire line up in AH:
Spitfire Mk Ia
Spitfire Mk Vb (@ 12 lbs)
Spitfire Mk Vc (@ 16 lbs)
Spitfire F.Mk IX
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII / Spitfire LF.Mk IX
Spitfire F.Mk XIV
All should have historic load outs, performance etc...
The Spitfire F.MK IX would still have a 'function' in ToD. If ToD comes close to being 'more then the CT' then the altitude advantage the F.IX has over the others will mean it gets good use.
My rationale behind that comment was since they are remodeling the Spits, this would be the time. And instead of expecting that many more Spits, I was looking at what made sense to give the most variety with the least amount of aircraft added.
My list was considering TOD, the variety of skins, the universal wing unclipped without hardpoints for the VIII and the multiple hardpoint, clipped E wing of the LFIXe/XVIe.
If you settle for one that can stand in for the other, we're back at the Spit FIX we have now which I don't think satisfies many of the Spit fans.
And you are correct, a lot of this is wishful thinking, but that's half the fun :)
Dan/CorkyJr