Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: ramzey on July 16, 2005, 01:36:41 PM
-
please dont hijack this thread about bost +12 or bost +25 wishes
1. spit 5 in AH2 have wing type B, outside everything is looks ok, but quanity of amno for 20m cannnon should be downgraded to 60 per gun, not like in C wing
2. Spitfire mk 9 have wing model E and here are 2 problems:
a)this model of wing never had .303 installed
b) wing model E was installed in late version of spitfires witchone had diferent fin and rudder.
Current AH2 Spit its hybrid of only Pyro knows wich model ;)
now we have early fuselage 1942-43 , wing wichone looks like early model but with armnent installed in 1944-45
suggestions for update
1. Spitfire mk5 with C wing with choice of 4x20mm or 2x20 mm +4x.303
2. Fix mk9 tail section to fit wing current arment and remove 2.20+4.,303 option (barly used by anyone)
or
live tail as is, change wing to C model and set to 4x20mm or 2x20+4x.303
this should fix a bit historical accuracy of current spitfire models in AH
regards
ramzey
-
Only, spits didn't have 4x20mm... only a few did, and they never became the norm nor did they become widespread. Very late version Spit 20+s and so forth had them, but they were mostly post-war and relatively few were made (the RAF moved on to jets not long after)
-
I really think we don't need new spits, but rather just make our spits fit a certain model in their family; instead of being the Spitfire Mk. IX, it would be something like the Spitfire LF.IX
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
I really think we don't need new spits, but rather just make our spits fit a certain model in their family; instead of being the Spitfire Mk. IX, it would be something like the Spitfire LF.IX
Compare to 109, The AH Spitfires have a huge gap.
evolution of 109 (using AH planes)
1940-41: Bf-109E-4
1941-42: Bf-109F-4
1942-43: Bf-109G-2
1943-44: Bf-109G-6
1944-45: Bf-109G-10
1940-41: Spit I
1941-42: Spit V
1942-43: Spit IX (merlin 61, 4x 303s and 2x 20mm cannon)
1943-44: NONE
1944-45: Spit XIV
Obviously AH needs 1 more spitfire... the LF Mk. VIII
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
I really think we don't need new spits, but rather just make our spits fit a certain model in their family; instead of being the Spitfire Mk. IX, it would be something like the Spitfire LF.IX
Compare to 109, The AH Spitfires have a 1 year gap.
evolution of 109 (using AH planes)
1940-41: Bf-109E-4
1941-42: Bf-109F-4
1942-43: Bf-109G-2
1943-44: Bf-109G-6
1944-45: Bf-109G-10
spitfires
1940-41: Spit I
1941-42: Spit V
1942-43: Spit IX (merlin 61, 4x 303s and 2x 20mm cannon)
1943-44: NONE
1944-45: Spit XIV
Obviously AH needs 1 more spitfire... the LF Mk. VIII (with Merlin 66 engine) for 1943-44
-
ramzey,
I don't think the engines or models in the game can be ignored. It is too big a problem.
1K3,
Actually it reads:
1940: Spitfire Mk Ia
1941: NONE
1942: Spitfire LF.Mk Vc (mislabeled as a Vb), Spitfire F.Mk IX
1943: NONE
1944: Spitfire Mk XIV (always perked and unusable)
1945: Spitfire Mk XIV (always perked and unusable)
-
And,,,,bear in mind that the Spitfire was VERY common in the skies of WW2
A 4 cannon spit in service would be very very late, - but there.
They were also around in the med, for low alt jobs, right?
This is already being covered in another thread, but Karnak has this rather nicely summed up IMHO.
-
Hmm.. so ramzey's suggestion on the Spit5 is designating it to Spitfire F.Mk.Vb, instead of the F.MK.Vc we have..
I think it's a very good idea that deserves serious thought from HTC!!! :)
I think it might somewhat offset the overusage towards the Spit5, and perhaps pursuade people to use the Spit9 more... or even better, use less Spit5s at all.
Think about it... the summary will be something like this.
-AH2 Spitfire F.MK.Vb('42)-
Pros
* runs at +16 boost
* only 4mph slower than the AH2 Spit9 at deck
* maneuvers better than the Spit9
Cons
* much slower than Spit9 as alt is higher
* only 120 rounds of 20mm ammo(60rpg)
-AH2 Spitfire F.MK.IX(Hybrid)-
Pros
* much faster than the Spit5 as alt grows
* 240 rounds of 20mm ammo(120rpg)
Cons
* Only 4 mph faster than the SpitV at deck
* maneuvers worse than the SpitV
I think it's a nice equalizer between pros and cons between the two Spitfires, and it's not an external limitation such as a perk price, but a purely historic representation of the plane.
If you want more maneuverability at the cost of less ammo, choose the SpitV... if you want better high alt performance, and more ammo at the cost of some maneuverability, choose the Spit9..!
...
IMO, the current Spit9 should be removed the 'e' wing option, and should use only 4x 30cal + 2x 20mm option, since it is a 1942 Spit9.
Since HTC is gonna rework on 109s and Spits soon, this is a chance to request a new model Spitfire represantative of late '43~'44 time period which uses the 'e' wing options... and the current Spit9 should be designated as;
"Spitfire F.MK.IXc('42)."
-
Ramzey, the AH Spitfire IX is a 1942 Merlin 61 engined "E" wing varient that never existed. The E armament should not be an option on that a/c.
The Spitfire V is a late 1942 Spitfire Vc (its just not called that), that has no drop tank option at all (which it should), but has a bomb, and 120 rpg for the 20mm.
The Spit V and IX need a proper overhaul. Neither version makes any sense.
The "E" wing should not appear on a Spit F. IX and the Spit V needs to be either a Vb or a Vc with the proper armament, options and engine and ammo load.
As far as a "4 x 20mm" load it was a very rare loudout mainly used for ground attack in the MED on the Spit Vc, and a few Spit VIIIs.
I hope HTC does a bit of research and sorts this out with the new models.
...and we need a 1943-44 Spit varient. LF IX, VIII, or LF XVI (16). The Spitfire XIV was a late 44-45 fighter and was not ever a dominant varient.
Its about having accurate representations in the game and getting away from "generic brand" Spits that mix/match equipment and performance.
-
Kweassa,
It wouldn't look like that at all.
Most Spitfire Mk Vbs had 240 rounds of cannon ammo. ramzey is asking for the early Spitfire Mk Vb with Hispano Mk I guns.
It would be at +12lbs boost, 60 rounds per cannon and have a float carburator.
Adding that Spitfire Mk V would leave the second half of 1941 and the first half of 1942 bare and we'd still not have a 1943 or 1944 Spitfire.
-
ramzey is asking for the early Spitfire Mk Vb
That's why you would need a proper Spit Vc. We know you won't get one but that's what you need whether you like or not :p
-
Ever since I've been in AH; I've seen comments that our Spit IX is some sort of oddball which probably never existed or existed in insignificant numbers.
And yet..and yet...
HTC are not new at this. They were there when Kesmai first launched thier Spit; and prolly whined about it; they launched thier own Spit in WB from what ever they thought were reliable sources; and now they've made "our" Spit IX they way they have.
Why?
Why would they go through the evolution of online flight sims only to grab data out of the air when they get the chance to make their own? Are you guys so sure ours is "wrong"?
I've never seen a comment from HTC on this particular subject; but seeing as I reckon they're at least as well informed as any one posting; I'd love to know their reasons for choosing to model what I'm lead to believe is an obscure model; when presumably there's more representative models to choose and for which documentation would be more readily available?
-
I think what they were trying to do was please the public; that never works. They bastardized a Spit9 in order to give everybody what they wanted. All the guys who just play don't care, but our historians can't stand it. :aok
-
i think ol "honey-baked hamzie" is on to somethin here. lowering the ammo load of the spit would discourage spittardism. case in point: Yak9-U
-
"Are you guys so sure ours is "wrong"? "
In a word, yes.
But look, nobody is "raving" against HTC, we just would like to see a few tweaked improvement in the IX series. By improvement I mean "more accurate" not "better". Its not a FM-whine about a missing 10mph.
Researching the E armament on the Spit IXs is not very hard, that armament came into service in mid-44, by which time the F.IX was no longer in use save a few units. Its pretty straightforward.
...and a new 1943-44 Spit of some kind added for TOD. Many discussions above.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"Are you guys so sure ours is "wrong"? "
In a word, yes.
But look, nobody is "raving" against HTC, we just would like to see a few tweaked improvement in the IX series. By improvement I mean "more accurate" not "better". Its not a FM-whine about a missing 10mph.
Researching the E armament on the Spit IXs is not very hard, that armament came into service in mid-44, by which time the F.IX was no longer in use save a few units. Its pretty straightforward.
...and a new 1943-44 Spit of some kind added for TOD. Many discussions above.
Actaully the F IX wasn't a highly produced variant. It was supplanted very quickly in 1943 by the LF IX (most produced Mk IX).
For our current Mk IX to be accurate - Remove the 50 cal options AND the ord carrying capability.
Theres no definative numbers but the breakdown is 'roughly' -
LF IX - 3600+
F IX and HF IX - 2000
As you can see the LF IX outnumbers the combined production of both the F and HF Mk IX.
Remember also the early Mk IX were a Mk V airframe with a Merlin 61 shoehorned in.
The basic problem is the almost the whole Spit lineup is fugged -
Mk I is a 1939 6lbs boost one, not a 1940 12lbs boost.
Mk V should have a fuel tank option.
Mk IX is just a frankenstein.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Mk IX is just a frankenstein.
Good one!:lol
-
Kill them all, let God sort it out.
By that I mean trash each and every spit there is and start over.
By the way, I don't think spits were running +12 at the BoB, if the spitVs came out with +12. Not likely.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
By the way, I don't think spits were running +12 at the BoB, if the spitVs came out with +12. Not likely.
There seems to be documentation that contradicts this however. It seems that Spitfire MK Is started converting to +12lbs boost WEP in March, 1940.
-
Yup Spits in the BoB were at 12lbs boost on 100 grade fuel, not 6lbs on 85 grade.
-
Well in case you didn't know, Spit5 in AH WEP boosts to +16. Now I have heard the rant about hybriding the b with c to fill a gap, but you can't simply do that. The b ran the Merlin 45 engine while the c ran the Merlin 50 and an extra fuel tank. So what your getting is the agility of the b model with the power of the c. That's fine, as long as you put the A8 engine in my A5 :D
-
Originally posted by JB42
Well in case you didn't know, Spit5 in AH WEP boosts to +16. Now I have heard the rant about hybriding the b with c to fill a gap, but you can't simply do that. The b ran the Merlin 45 engine while the c ran the Merlin 50 and an extra fuel tank. So what your getting is the agility of the b model with the power of the c. That's fine, as long as you put the A8 engine in my A5 :D
No Spitfire fan asked for this though and most of the vocal ones have asked for it to be made acurate, so buzz off.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Yup Spits in the BoB were at 12lbs boost on 100 grade fuel, not 6lbs on 85 grade.
I don't buy that. Not entirely. From my understanding the 100 octane was in short supply AND was being stockpiled for use with upgraded spitfire engines, but was not yet widely dispersed, nor widely used.
100 octane was a fairly new idea for the Brits at the time (so to speak). I don't think it could be instantly distributed and every engine up-rated for its use so fast. Logistics takes time.
-
Originally posted by JB42
Well in case you didn't know, Spit5 in AH WEP boosts to +16. Now I have heard the rant about hybriding the b with c to fill a gap, but you can't simply do that. The b ran the Merlin 45 engine while the c ran the Merlin 50 and an extra fuel tank. So what your getting is the agility of the b model with the power of the c. That's fine, as long as you put the A8 engine in my A5 :D
Well -
The highest model Merlin fitted to Vb was the 46 (F Vb)
The highest model Merlin fitted to Vc was the 56 (F Vc)
Highest horsepower for each one
LF Vb - Merlin 45M
LF Vc - Merlin 55M
So you weren't far off.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't buy that. Not entirely. From my understanding the 100 octane was in short supply AND was being stockpiled for use with upgraded spitfire engines, but was not yet widely dispersed, nor widely used.
100 octane was a fairly new idea for the Brits at the time (so to speak). I don't think it could be instantly distributed and every engine up-rated for its use so fast. Logistics takes time.
Yes it was stockpiled, from well before the war even started.
It was released to squadrons in May 1940, AFTER engine conversions were started in March. (Luftwaffe vs RAF Book). This would make sense considering it's when Churchill took over.
It increased the HP from 1030 to 1310
-
100 octane was a fairly new idea for the Brits at the time (so to speak). I don't think it could be instantly distributed and every engine up-rated for its use so fast. Logistics takes time.
The process of switching to 100 octane began with tests and order for the fuel in 1937, by November 1940 (just as the battle finished) the stockpile was 500,000 tons.
There are various air ministry documents recommending the immediate switch over dating from late 1939, and the technical documents show that it wasn't a very complicated procedure.
In fact, switching to CS props was probably more complex, and the entire Spitfire and Hurricane force was converted in very short order (1 - 2 months)
From my understanding the 100 octane was in short supply AND was being stockpiled for use with upgraded spitfire engines, but was not yet widely dispersed, nor widely used.
Apart from the size of the stockpile, Mike Williams has now documented 18 Spitfire squadrons running on 100 octane during the battle, which is pretty much all of them.
Wood and Dempster note that FC used 22,000 tons of 100 octane between July and October, which is enough for about 6000 Spit and Hurricane sorties a week, the actual total of operational sorties was about 4,000 a week.
-
We can spew numbers and text all day long... it doesn't help the situation any.
What I don't understand is why the SpitV in AH has more sorties than the Spit9, it shows there is a problem.
-
What I don't understand is why the SpitV in AH has more sorties than the Spit9, it shows there is a problem.
No it doesn't.
What it reflects is the typical combat altitude in AH.
The AH Spit F.IX is a better performer the higher up you go. If the combat in AH were typically at a higher alitudet (above 15k or so) useage numbers would be reversed.
The G-2 gets more sorties then the G-6. What 'problem' is there in that?
People who don't understand the issues at hand ought to just read and learn.
-
IF we get an LF IX or LF XVI with the remodel I think you'll see the Spit IX/XVI in front of the V again.
As was pointed out our current Spit is an F IX (using term loosely), more suited to higher alts, the LF models of the Spit would see more use.
Mk V with WEP is only marginally slower than the IX at low alts, but it turns a hell of a lot better, therefore it see's more use in the AH environment.
Throw an LF IX or LF VXI in the mix, then see the difference.