Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kev367th on October 02, 2005, 08:01:51 PM
-
Assuming we get both the VIII and XVI and we already know the XVI is going to be clipped.
How about clipping the VIII also, just so that the XVI isn't instantly recognizable as a XVI because it's the only clipped Spit.
Or if the new V is an LF, clip that instead of the VIII.
Still hoping Pyro has a change of mind and does the XVI as a bubbletop :) . (paves the way further down the line for an F.21 (quad hizookas) or a bubbletop XIV)
-
Noooooooooo!!!!!!
I really dislike how clipped wing Spits look. That is one reason I would pick the VIII over the XVI. I also prefer what I think of as the classic armament of two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns. I know the two 20s and two 50s are better, but it is my preference.
I also seem to recall that most VIIIs were not clipped. Dan'd know for sure.
Clipping the V would not work either as it is needed for '41 and early '42, before they started clipping wings.
-
Consider that before the icons it was hard to distinguish between a 109E and a 109F/G until EXTREMELY close range. Even then you had to get a top-down planform view of the sucker to distinguish it.
If there *IS* a VIII, I think it needs to be non-clipped to make it different. If there's a VIII and an XVI and both are at the same boost and both are clipped wing, what's the point? If one is clipped and the other is not it brings greater variety.
That is, of course, if we get the spit8 at all.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Noooooooooo!!!!!!
I really dislike how clipped wing Spits look. That is one reason I would pick the VIII over the XVI. I also prefer what I think of as the classic armament of two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns. I know the two 20s and two 50s are better, but it is my preference.
I also seem to recall that most VIIIs were not clipped. Dan'd know for sure.
Clipping the V would not work either as it is needed for '41 and early '42, before they started clipping wings.
Think thats the problem with clipped -
It was done usually at unit level as and when required, only ones I know of that were ALL produced clipped as standard were the XII's and XVI's. Even then standard tips could be fitted as the situation needed.
Krusty - That was my thought exactly, no point having the VIII if the XVI is at 18lbs. Just have to wait and see what Pyro comes up with.
Maybe he'll surpirse us with either a 25lbs XVI and an 18lbs VIII, or a XVI and a XII (oh I wish)
Hoping the apparent lag of the Spits behind the 109's is that something 'special' is on the way :)
-
Doesnt seem like there were a lot of clipped VIIIs. Yes, I know there were a # of them...but the "typical VIII" was a standard wing version, MED and BURMA.
For that reason, I would hope it is a standard wing VIII.
Im really not for going with the "most exotic" over the "most common".
But thats just me. I will be happy with either really.
Clipped wing XVI makes more sense, if we get both. If.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Krusty - That was my thought exactly, no point having the VIII if the XVI is at 18lbs. Just have to wait and see what Pyro comes up with.
Maybe he'll surpirse us with either a 25lbs XVI and an 18lbs VIII, or a XVI and a XII (oh I wish)
Nothing is lost. wee need the VIII for PAC setups. If i remember, the VIII had wing fuel takns so it can cover long range CAPs, ect on PAC ops. It would be best if the VIII had default pacific RAF skin.
-
Leave the VIII with a standard wing. Most had em. Not many clipped VIIIs at all.
Who cares if they know it's an LFXVIe :)
Better alternative would be having a clipped Vb too.
But I'd take any LF Merlin 66/266 Spit variant at this point, even if it was just one of the 3 LFVIII, LFIX or LFXVI
-
Clipped-wing LF.XVIE with bubble top just 'cause it looks cool...
-
The clipping option should be in the Hangar.
Just my 2 cents ;)
-
^ I concur ^
-
I thought about clipping option in the hanger but apparently it can't be done.
It means loading a different FM.
I thought you could give a choice of LF, F, or HF engines and clipped, standard, or extended wingtips in the hanger.
-
Why not?
Various loads are all calculated into the FM
Various damage also gets calculated - included is the loss of a wing or two, so I think it should be doable.
But we won't probably get it anyway. So I gree with some above,- that they don't clip the VIII.
-
Well is it so complicated that we couldn't have both versions for each model concerned?
-
and the high alt wings huh ? a spit with large wings should be a beast in turnfights at sea level lol
-
Personally, I like the clipped wings, dunno why everyone wants standard?
-
Long wings malcom hood for the VIII
Clip wing bubble top for the XVI
Normal wings and malcome hood for the IX
-
Hehe
"and the high alt wings huh ? a spit with large wings should be a beast in turnfights at sea level lol"
A good turner compared to other fighters at absolutely any altitude.
But rolls worse.
Ceiling High.
ROC probably better.
Top speed probably worse untill the alt becomes very high.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe
"and the high alt wings huh ? a spit with large wings should be a beast in turnfights at sea level lol"
A good turner compared to other fighters at absolutely any altitude.
But rolls worse.
Ceiling High.
ROC probably better.
Top speed probably worse untill the alt becomes very high.
And the fact that they put standard wingtips on the VII when they had to use it in a normal fighter roll during 44.
-
I'm not sure if the longer wings gave better turn rate, look at the Ta-152, larger wings aren't always better.
Maybe at low alt they made to much drag or had structure problems, otherwise, if turn was that good they may have used them more then on just high alt models.
Either that or the roll rate was just that much more important to spit pilots.
I'm hoping that the spit FM is toyed with a bit, as many said we've got the best spits by far in Aces High, I like the spits, I used to be a big fan of the Seafire, but they do need to get toned down a bit. And even if they were, they'ed still been great aircraft as most likly one of the most popular.
I guess I just grow tired of takin' off in something and everyone else is in a spit, I don't even need Icons anymore, it's always a spit. :-/
Edward
-
I'm not sure if the longer wings gave better turn rate, look at the Ta-152, larger wings aren't always better.
The 152 out turns the D-9...
-
Longer tips in this case means more wing area, that results in lower wingloading and lower spanloading. Therefore presumably better turnrate.
Drag is increased obviously since a bigger wing is being pulled through the airmass.
I belive the rollrate is documented, - being lower than the rollrate of a normal wing. Also to be expected.
And as for the "best Spits being in AH", - no.
We have the best of the MkV. We have a so-so Mk I, an early Mk IX with some abnormal wing, and a perked XIV that seems to be a wee porked, - at least regarding ROC and turn.
-
We have the best spits?
New lineup -
Spit I - 12lbs boost, so OK
Spit V - 12lbs boost (down from 16), more representative, so OK
Spit VIII - 18lbs boost, so OK
Spit IX - Staying same apart form loadouts, so OK
Spit XIV - 21lbs (up from 18), so yup the best one (makes it worth perk price).
Spit XVI - 18lbs, BIG DISAPPOINTMENT, puts it at LF IX 1943 performance.
So basically still no free Spit post 1943 with the matching performance, a XVI at 25lbs puts it in the late 1944 bracket, and would have been a perfect adversary for the upcoming G-14.
Apparently a Spit XVI at 25lbs is too good for the MA lolololol.
Bring on the 1945 F.21 - 455-460mph at 20k :)
-
Where are you getting these numbers?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Where are you getting these numbers?
Phoned up HTC HQ and spoke to Pyro personally.
As of the last call that was his intentions.
Although a few people has sent him some more data on the Mk XVI since then. His conscern was its 5 mins (WEP), 25lbs boost, 0-5000ft climb rate (5700fpm).
Sent him docs form Rolls Royce and the National Archives showing that that was only available in a specific configuration (not one usually setup for flying with).
In fact the climb rate 0-5000ft with clipped wings seems closer to 4700fpm.
The XVI at 18lbs boost has EXACTLY the same performance as a 1943 LF IX, same engine although built in the U.S. instead of U.K.
Kind of defeated the whole point of using 25lbs boost which gives us a range of Spits from 1940 all the way through to 1945.
As an aside the first 2 sqns of LF IX converted to 25lbs boost May 1944.
-
Originally posted by EdXCal
we've got the best spits by far in Aces High
Edward
If we had the best spits modeled in AH we would have the Mk XII .
Probably one of the best low alt figters built in ww2 . IMHO
But we will never see it why ? It is a bit rare and I am sure HT doesn't want to hear the whine it will cause.
Bronk
Also HT would go broke handing out the cheeze to go with that whine.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
If we had the best spits modeled in AH we would have the Mk XII .
Probably one of the best low alt figters built in ww2 . IMHO
But we will never see it why ? It is a bit rare and I am sure HT doesn't want to hear the whine it will cause.
Bronk
Also HT would go broke handing out the cheeze to go with that whine.
Spit XII is no rarer than certain other planes already in AH.
120 built / 120 all operational.
Whats irksome is the 'big' two get most of their stuff 1944/45 free. Latest Spit we have, and will have even after the remodel is the 1944 Spit 14 (perked). Hell even Russia has it's late war unperked ride.
Not counting the XVI because at 18lbs boost it puts the performance squarely in 1943.
25lbs boost puts the XVI late 1944/early 1945.
For a true 1945 plane we'd need the F.21, and if Pyro thinks the XVI is to good for the MA at 25lbs boost, NO WAY we'd get a F.21 at 18lbs or 21lbs.
-
So, do you think that the Spit 16 will have it's stats boosted? Or put exactly where you listed it?
Btw, I forget where I read it, but I read that the Spit 21 was incredibly unstable.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So, do you think that the Spit 16 will have it's stats boosted? Or put exactly where you listed it?
Btw, I forget where I read it, but I read that the Spit 21 was incredibly unstable.
Last I heard the XVI was at 18lbs only. So basically all we gain in free Spits is 1 year (1943), as the XVI at 18lbs boost is identical in performance to the 1943 LF Mk IX.
Originally yes the F.21 suffered yaw problems. Was fixed by the time it entered service, some were even fitted with a 'Spiteful' tail.
What would be nice was the 4x20mm hizookas that were fitted as standard.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Last I heard the XVI was at 18lbs only. So basically all we gain in free Spits is 1 year (1943), as the XVI at 18lbs boost is identical in performance to the 1943 LF Mk IX.
Originally yes the F.21 suffered yaw problems. Was fixed by the time it entered service, some were even fitted with a 'Spiteful' tail.
What would be nice was the 4x20mm hizookas that were fitted as standard.
No Spiteful tail on the 21. That did get on the 22 and 24. Stability and yaw problems were taken care of however.
-
°So the problem with Spits is that they are too good ;)
-
The Mk XVI will have an "e" wing unstead of the 1943 LF.Mk IX's universal wing, so the armament is slightly more powerful. It will also be clipped, which not all LF.IXs were.
-
Originally posted by Angus
°So the problem with Spits is that they are too good ;)
Evidently or we would be getting a later model.
:O :O <---- just had to use em.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Mk XVI will have an "e" wing unstead of the 1943 LF.Mk IX's universal wing, so the armament is slightly more powerful. It will also be clipped, which not all LF.IXs were.
I realise that Karnak.
But performance wise it's NO better than 1943 LF Mk IX.
Thats why I said we only gain 1 year in performance with the new (free)Spits, from 1942 to 1943.
Still leaves 1944/45, that was the WHOLE idea of having it at 25lbs, made it a 1944 Spit XVI, Mk VIII covered 1943, Mk IX 1942, Mk V 1941, Mk I 1940.
Perked Mk XIV at 21lbs boost 1944/45.
Even we realised the chance of getting an F.21 was 0 to -10000000000 when we did the suggested Spit lineup.
Seems strange that in other threads people are vaunting the allegedly technically superior 190/109, and yet we still can't get a 'technically inferior' (in their eyes) 1944 (with matching performance) FREE Spit.
Can imagine the whine-o-meter going off the scale if a Mk XII or F.21 turned up.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
It
Seems strange that in other threads people are vaunting the allegedly technically superior 190/109, and yet we still can't get a 'technically inferior' (in their eyes) 1944 (with matching performance) FREE Spit.
turned up.
LOL Thanx for pointing that out. With all the x aircraft is better than y junk.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Can imagine the whine-o-meter going off the scale if a Mk XII or F.21 turned up.
Why? Personally, I think the LA5 and LA7s are far more of a challange than either of these allegadly scary, but irl 'nothing special' planes. The only scary thing about the Mk 21 are the four Hispanos, but then, the other side has the MK 108, which leaves absolutely no room for error. A single hit and you're toast.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Why? Personally, I think the LA5 and LA7s are far more of a challange than either of these allegadly scary, but irl 'nothing special' planes. The only scary thing about the Mk 21 are the four Hispanos, but then, the other side has the MK 108, which leaves absolutely no room for error. A single hit and you're toast.
Lol, we CAN'T even get a Merlin 66 Mk XVI at 25lbs boost because IT'S TOO GOOD FOR THE MA.
These are both far faster Griffon Spits.
Mk XII was one of the fastest planes low level for its time.
F.21 - tell me a production 109/190 that could do 455-460 straight and level and 20k?
Yes the Mk108 was good, but you have to get a shot on a XII or F.21 first.
In the MA I worry more about Lalas than ANY 190/109.
-
IT'S TOO GOOD FOR THE MA.
Who said that? Please quote it verbatim.
What a Spit LF.XVI @ 25 lbs will do is make it a useless addition to the game for events, ToD and scenarios. So this Spit, even at 25 lbs (which is nothing special), becomes completely useless even as a sub. Then RAF fans are stuck with the Spit F.IX for events just like they are now. The LF.VIII could stand in but its longer range is less then ideal as a sub for an LF.IX
Despite your constant whining an 18lbs boost LF.XVI will have more useage overall including the main and in events. Now convince HTC to add an Spit LF.IX as well then you can tool around in the main with 25 lbs boost all you want. The folks that don't support 25lbs boost (even Spit fans like karnak) know exactly why an 18 lbs LF.XXX (IX or XVI) is a better choice overall. The LF.XVI at 18lbs fills a gap and thats why folks prefer it over one at 25 lbs.
Either you can accept that for what it is, or heck keep crying about it...
YMMV
-
What's the Spit 14's boost now? How much better will it perform if the boost is going up?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
What's the Spit 14's boost now? How much better will it perform if the boost is going up?
Currently at 18lbs, if the FM is fixed the XIV at 21lbs will climb a hell of a lot better than it currently does.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Who said that? Please quote it verbatim.
What a Spit LF.XVI @ 25 lbs will do is make it a useless addition to the game for events, ToD and scenarios. So this Spit, even at 25 lbs (which is nothing special), becomes completely useless even as a sub. Then RAF fans are stuck with the Spit F.IX for events just like they are now. The LF.VIII could stand in but its longer range is less then ideal as a sub for an LF.IX
Despite your constant whining an 18lbs boost LF.XVI will have more useage overall including the main and in events. Now convince HTC to add an Spit LF.IX as well then you can tool around in the main with 25 lbs boost all you want. The folks that don't support 25lbs boost (even Spit fans like karnak) know exactly why an 18 lbs LF.XXX (IX or XVI) is a better choice overall. The LF.XVI at 18lbs fills a gap and thats why folks prefer it over one at 25 lbs.
Either you can accept that for what it is, or heck keep crying about it...
YMMV
Check back through the Spit XVI posts you'll find Pyro mentions that a XVI at 25lbs has in his opinion too good a climbrate for the MA and would most likely dominate it.
From speaking to him on the phone he feels that it would give other aircraft only one option - to run.
Gotta add this - If you think given the option of a LF IX @ 18 or a LF XVI @ 25 the IX would see more use in the MA, your living on a different planet.
Yes it would be nice to have both an LF IX and a LF XVI, but we tried to be REALISTIC and keep the suggested extra Spits to a bare MINIMUM. The lineup gave a range of FREE Spits form 1940 to 1944 at DIFFERING performance levles. As it stands theres not enough difference between the VIII and XVI that I believe the VIII may be dropped.
There is no reason why an VIII couldn't stand-in for a LF IX - Compromises are made ALL the time in scenarios/events.
A useless addition - Biggest useless addition in the whole planeset is the TA-152, yet we have it. When was the last time it was ever used in a scenario, or seen a lot of use in the MA for that matter?
Or is it only the LW are allowed useless planes?
Oh and by the way - Karnak was one of us original guys who got together and suggested the XVI at 25lbs boost.
-
Check back through the Spit XVI posts you'll find Pyro mentions that a XVI at 25lbs has in his opinion too good a climbrate for the MA and would most likely dominate it.
From speaking to him on the phone he feels that it would give other aircraft only one option - to run.
I think it is you thats needs to search those posts. I have and Pyro didn't make any post stating that, all we have is you claiming he did. Given your consistent whines about how 'HTC hates spitfires' don't expect folks to take your word for it.
In fact Pyro has said the very same thing I have.
Here it is in Pyro's own words:
I think there's been a general consensus in the various threads about how to change the Spit lineup that I pretty much concur with.
There has been some advocacy for a +25lb boost clipped wing Mk XVI. I really don't see what hole that fills. It would pretty much fall into the same category as the XIV. I have no qualms with that plane, but I think going with a 2000+hp version of it would be a waste as it would end up perked and CM's wouldn't use it much either.
__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
This thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156706&highlight=Pyro)
If you think given the option of a LF IX @ 18 or a LF XVI @ 25 the IX would see more use in the MA, your living on a different planet.
A Spit LF.IX or LF.XVI @ 18 lbs will see more use the the Spit F.IX. If you can read here's what I wrote:
Despite your constant whining an 18lbs boost LF.XVI will have more usage overall including the main and in events.
An unperked LF.XVI @ 25lbs may see more use in the main but overall an 18 lbs LF.IX or LF.XVI will see contribute more to all aspects of AH.
Yes it would be nice to have both an LF IX and a LF XVI, but we tried to be REALISTIC and keep the suggested extra Spits to a bare MINIMUM. The lineup gave a range of FREE Spits form 1940 to 1944 at DIFFERING performance levles. As it stands theres not enough difference between the VIII and XVI that I believe the VIII may be dropped.
No shyte... That's why it's more realistic to expect a LF.XVI at 18lbs boost...
A useless addition - Biggest useless addition in the whole planeset is the TA-152, yet we have it. When was the last time it was ever used in a scenario, or seen a lot of use in the MA for that matter?
Or is it only the LW are allowed useless planes?
Why the strawman? Did anyone here mention the 152? BTW who requested that the 152 be added to AH in the first place? Who whined about how HTC must 'Hate Kurt Tank' if HTC doesn't model the 152. 152 usage in AH is as insignificant as it was in rl. It could disappear tomorrow and only a few folks would even think twice about it.
Oh and by the way - Karnak was one of us original guys who got together and suggested the XVI at 25lbs boost.
Search his posts he has said, like many others that an 18 lb LF.XVI would be a more useful and reasonable choice for AH. He may have liked a lightly perked Spit LF.XVI @ 25 lbs but he is not constantly crying about it. In fact you and he argued about it:
One of his replies:
How many times does it need to be explained to you? I have told you over and over why it is a good thing to have both and yet you insist on pouting.
If we have only the XVI we will never have a chance to get it at +25lbs because of the big gaping hole that would open. Further there would be endless whines about using it in any scenario where a universal wing Spit should be used or a non-clipped Spit should be used. If you don't think that would be used to justify keeping Spits out of scenarios you haven't watched the CT for the last year.
In order to keep all options open we need both the VIII and XVI.
From this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156716&highlight=Pyro)
As I said you can either accept that explanation or keep crying either way its only you...
-
Try talking to him personally on the phone, youll find out his biggest conscern is its climb rate @ 25lbs.
You'll also realise he reckons it would "dominate the MA". his words, not mine.
Useless - Well you started it, I just showed a useless (by your reckoning) LW plane.
It's fine for you having your free 1944/45 planes, how dare we ask for a free Spit at 1944 performance levels instead of 1943.
Then agian it all fits in with the typical way thing go -
Anything we want has to be documented form at least a dozen independent sources, in triplicate, and personally signed by JC himself.
Anything the other side wants a scribbled/doodled memo even hinting at something is considered gospel.
IF we get the VIII (not definate) there is no reason AT ALL it can't fill in for LF IX, compromises are made constantly in scenarios.
I suppose you'd have no problems with a free Mk XII then?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
I suppose you'd have no problems with a free Mk XII then? [/B]
None at all . :D
Bronk
-
Try talking to him personally on the phone, youll find out his biggest conscern is its climb rate @ 25lbs.
You'll also realise he reckons it would "dominate the MA". his words, not mine.
We don't need to 'talk to him on the phone'. He posted his thoughts on a 25 lb Spit XVI and I have quoted him directly. What you say he said is no value when we have his direct words.
Useless - Well you started it, I just showed a useless (by your reckoning) LW plane.
No you started it by whining once again about a 25 lb Spit. The key word here is 'Spit'. No one in this thread started anything about the LW other then you. It's nothing but strawman, you can't make a counter argument to the points raised so you bring up something completely irrelevant.
It's fine for you having your free 1944/45 planes, how dare we ask for a free Spit at 1944 performance levels instead of 1943.
More strawman, the only purpose of my reply was to point out your whining and the fact that that an 18 lb Spit XVI will have more overall usage. Nothing you have stated comes close to addressing those points.
Anything we want has to be documented form at least a dozen independent sources, in triplicate, and personally signed by JC himself.
Anything the other side wants a scribbled/doodled memo even hinting at something is considered gospel.
More strawman, I never mentioned any documentation my words were:
Who said that? Please quote it verbatim.
What a Spit LF.XVI @ 25 lbs will do is make it a useless addition to the game for events, ToD and scenarios. So this Spit, even at 25 lbs (which is nothing special), becomes completely useless even as a sub. Then RAF fans are stuck with the Spit F.IX for events just like they are now. The LF.VIII could stand in but its longer range is less then ideal as a sub for an LF.IX
Despite your constant whining an 18lbs boost LF.XVI will have more usage overall including the main and in events. Now convince HTC to add an Spit LF.IX as well then you can tool around in the main with 25 lbs boost all you want. The folks that don't support 25lbs boost (even Spit fans like karnak) know exactly why an 18 lbs LF.XXX (IX or XVI) is a better choice overall. The LF.XVI at 18lbs fills a gap and thats why folks prefer it over one at 25 lbs.
Either you can accept that for what it is, or heck keep crying about it...
YMMV
IF we get the VIII there is no reason AT ALL it can't fill in for LF IX, compromises are made constantly in scenarios.
No a VIII has some different characteristics that make it a less suitable substitute for a LF.IX. If forced with no other choice then yes a VIII could fill that roll. However, if HTC is going to model a XVI it would be an ideal substitute for an the 18 lbs LF.XI. A 25 lb Spit LF.XVI, according to Pyro, would have limited use and he expects that it would be perked in the main. Most folks agree with that or at the very least understand his reasoning. Therefore, a Spit XVI @ 18 lbs boost is best the way to go. Any other issue you want to wrap into that is all in your head.
-
"We don't need to 'talk to him on the phone'. He posted his thoughts on a 25 lb Spit XVI and I have quoted him directly. What you say he said is no value when we have his direct words."
No value - Guess you just pick and choose AS USUAL.
Speaking to him personally allows you to go into more detail. But I guess your not interested in detail. Rather than a post on the forum it was about a 25 min conversation I had with him, went over a lot, lot more.
But of course you don't want to hear that he thinks a 'lowly' Spit XVI@25 would probably dominate the MA, goes against the 190/109 uber alles.
Useless - Take it anyway way you want, you said useless as in scenario use etc, I just pointed out there are equally 'useless' planes using your standards, and picked the obvoius one out. In fact lets generalise, I don't believe there has ever been scenario D-Day or beyond? In which case theres a load of 'useless planes'.
No the VIII isn't a perfect stand-in for the LF IX, but it's close enough. Considering some of the compromises made for scenarios it would be minor compared to others.
We couldn't win either way -
If we'd asked for a I, Vb, Vc, FIX, LFIX, LFVIII, XII, FXIV, LFXVI all we would have got is "OH NO NOT ANOTHER SPITFIRE" whine.
You never answered - Any problem with having a free 1942 Spit XII?
{edit} Oops I remember a scenario based on the possibly the last engagement of WW2, the Seafire vs Zekes.
-
No value - Guess you just pick and choose AS USUAL.
Sure I pick and choose. I chose Pyro's words:
I think there's been a general consensus in the various threads about how to change the Spit lineup that I pretty much concur with.
There has been some advocacy for a +25lb boost clipped wing Mk XVI. I really don't see what hole that fills. It would pretty much fall into the same category as the XIV. I have no qualms with that plane, but I think going with a 2000+hp version of it would be a waste as it would end up perked and CM's wouldn't use it much either.
__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Over what you claim he said.
Useless - Take it anyway way you want, you said useless as in scenario use etc, I just pointed out there are equally 'useless' planes using your standards, and picked the obvoius one out. In fact lets generalise, I don't believe there has ever been scenario D-Day or beyond? In which case theres a load of 'useless planes'.
This thread isn't about those other 'useless planes'. If you are looking to discuss those other 'useless planes' then use the forum search feature and drag out an appropriate thread.
There has been plenty of late war scenarios and/or events. The problem with those, however, is the general disparity in forces that make them relatively unpopular. The best scenarios and events are ones that areas close to evenly matched as possible.
No the VIII isn't a perfect stand-in for the LF IX, but it's close enough.
A Spit XVI @ 18 lbs is even closer and a far better choice...
If we'd asked for a I, Vb, Vc, FIX, LFIX, LFVIII, XII, FXIV, LFXVI all we would have got is "OH NO NOT ANOTHER SPITFIRE" whine.
The whine isn't in the asking, the whine is in the repeated exaggerations and dramatics you use over and over. Anyone can search your posts on Spit additions to AH. I have and they full of self-pitying and whining intermingled with "its not fair he's has such and such and I don't..."
Guppy would like a Merlin 66 XVI CW @ 25 lbs, but he doesn't make-up exaggerated rationalizations as to why, he just likes it.
But this discussion isn't about other planes or other Spitfires. Its about a XVI at 25 lbs boost. The reason Pyro has given on this forum is clear and its been repeated by myself and others. At 25 lbs it would less useful then one at 18lbs. This has f'all to do with other aircraft.
You never answered - Any problem with having a free 1942 Spit XII?
I don't need to answer your question because it has no bearing on my points. However, I will say that if the XII were added on its own, not at the expense of a 'better choice' then I could careless. I don't care anything about what planes gets added as long as it fills some roll or gap and contributes to making ToD a success. Once those rolls / gaps are filled then who cares...
-
I don't 'claim' he said it, he DID say it. As I stated there's a lot more in 25 min phone call that a short post on a BB.
Your choice, take the whole story, or just what fits your way of thinking.
No it wasn't about useless planes - You introduced the term useless in relation to scenarios etc. You don't like it pointed out by your standards there are other useless planes fine, but the comparison I made is valid.
TOD is unlikely for a while to get anywhere near up do D-Day judging by posts, so wheres the point in redoing or introducing any post June 1944 models. None by your reckoning, they wouldn't be useful.
If pointing out the disparities between the LW and RAF planesets is exaggerations I suggest you take a real close look at the actual planes available, which year, what power settings, on both sides.
I guess we'll just have to disagree rather than going round in endless circles.
-
Add the XII and you can skip all the rest, at least for me :)
As for the +25 XVI, that would be my wish for the MA. I think for scenarios etc an LFIX/XVI with +18 is plenty.
The +25 wish is purely based on my liking Allied birds. I don't fly LA7s and I don't fly LW birds outside of the 109E (kinda like the Emil) But that's just me.
So when the LA7s go roaring past at light speed down low, I'd like a Spit to be able to give chase in. It's as simple as that. I don't want to be forced into LA7s just to keep up. Spit history is a longtime passion so flying a virtual Spit is far more enjoyable then taking something I have list historical interest in.
But if the XII ever showed up, I'd have the bird to chase down LAs :)
-
Bruno,
The LF.Mk XVIe has the wrong armament and ordnance capabilities for a 1943 LF.Mk IX. That is one of the things we are trying to get away from, .50 cals on Spits before they're supposed to be there.
Explain what performance differences the LF.Mk VIII has from the LF.Mk IX that make it less suitable than the LF.Mk XVIe which has an armament that is not appropriate?
The clipped wings are not required as the LF designation does not indicate clipped wings, just the altitude bands the engine is optimized for. Many LF Spits had full span wings.
Without the LF.Mk VIII what we end up having is the mid 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX having to hold the line in scenarios, the CT or ToD until mid 1944 when the LF.Mk XVIe can finally be used. That is two years in a fighter that can barely break 320mph at AH combat altitudes. I can assure you that the guys running the CT, when faced with a 1943 or early '44 setup and having to pick the overpowered LF.Mk XVIe or the underpowered F.Mk IX will almost always pick the underpowered F.Mk IX lest the whines from the Luftwaffe segment be deafening. Given you are a Luftwaffe fan I cannot help but see your advocation of just the F.Mk IX and LF.Mk XVI as a ploy to face weaker Spitfires.
-
I don't 'claim' he said it, he DID say it. As I stated there's a lot more in 25 min phone call that a short post on a BB.
Your choice, take the whole story, or just what fits your way of thinking.
I can make judgments based on what Pyro has said and what you have said. Given your propensity towards 'dramatics' balanced against Pyro's own words its not a hard guess as to which I believe.
You introduced the term useless in relation to scenarios etc.
It wasn't used at random. If you understand the word 'context', and re-read what I have written, it was in direct reply to your claim that the reason there will be no 25lbs Spit is because:
IT'S TOO GOOD FOR THE MA.
The reason to go with an 18lb Spit XVI is it will be more useful overall.
I asked that you back up your claim with a verbatim quote of any one who said you can't have a 25lb Spit because its too good for the main. Instead of backing up your claim you offer nothing more then 'Pyro told on the phone' even though this own words on this forum contradict you. Since that doesn't work you created several 'strawman' like 'the Ta-152 is useless' or 'what about other useless planes'. Other useless planes have no bearing on the usefulness of the a 25lbs Spit and don't help your argument in any way. The time to whine about those other useless planes would have been before they were introduced. Since they are in game they are irrelevant.
So when the LA7s go roaring past at light speed down low, I'd like a Spit to be able to give chase in. It's as simple as that. I don't want to be forced into LA7s just to keep up. Spit history is a longtime passion so flying a virtual Spit is far more enjoyable then taking something I have list historical interest in.
Well then just say that. Don't create BS rationalizations about why one is needed. You want a 25lb Spit, that doesn't change the fact that an 18 lb Spit XVI is the better and more useful choice for AH overall.
I guess we'll just have to disagree rather than going round in endless circles.
There are multiple threads where you whine about this very subject. I am almost positive you will start another. If you are tired of going in circles then stop whining and posting about a 25lb Spit. The Spit LF.XVI @ 18lbs is a good and useful addition to AH.
If HTC were to do an LF.IX @ 18 lbs or both a LF.XVI @ 18 lbs and 25 lbs then no one would give a crap. However, if the choice is between an 18 lbs or 25 lbs then the best choice overall is to go with the 18 lbs. It will contribute more to all aspects of AH. It will have use in the main over the F.IX and a Spit V @ 12 lbs. It will have plenty of use in scenarios, events and especially ToD. If you can't understand that then I don't know what to tell other then either accept that or keep on whining...
-
Bruno,
You made the assertion that the LF.Mk XVIe was more suitable to sub for the LF.Mk IX than the LF.Mk VIII would be. Please back up that assertion and explain what performance differences the LF.Mk VIII has that outweigh the LF.Mk XVIe's completely unsuitable armament. I am assuming both at at +18lbs boost here.
Don't just make assertions like that without explaining why you see things that way.
-
I think most people are right about Spit LF 16. Spit LF 16 with +25 boost is too uber. It can maintain 5000+ fpm climb up to 10,000 feet.:eek: My goodness even the latest fighter jets in the 1950s (Mig 15 and F-80/86) can barely maintain that kind of fpm rate.
I would love an explanation if +25 boost spit LF 16 was widely used in 1944-45.
-
The LF.Mk XVIe has the wrong armament and ordnance capabilities for a 1943 LF.Mk IX. That is one of the things we are trying to get away from, .50 cals on Spits before they're supposed to be there.
This isn't really much of issue except for hybridization of the current F.IX. One could make the exception for the .50s. Ordnance can be determined by the CMs in events and scenarios or set by the mission in ToD.
Explain what performance differences the LF.Mk VIII has from the LF.Mk IX that make it less suitable than the LF.Mk XVIe which has an armament that is not appropriate?
Quote where I said 'performance differences'. The VIII will have longer range over an LF.XVI It will also be slightly heavier which will marginally affect acceleration and climb. Range will be an issue in ToD, events, and scenarios.
As I said .303s or .50s aren't really much of a concern especially considering the lethality of the Spitfires in question rest with the Hizookas.
The clipped wings are not required as the LF designation does not indicate clipped wings, just the altitude bands the engine is optimized for. Many LF Spits had full span wings.
Thanks for that I guess... However, I know that and where did I say LF = clipped winged? The Spit F.IX with better high altitude performance will serve well in ToD, events, and scenarios. Let's not pretend this plane doesn't have its advantages. Even the LF doesn't mean low alt, its mostly medium altitude and thats what AH is missing. Whether it be an LF.IX or LF.XVI (e wing or not) its still a good choice.
Without the LF.Mk VIII what we end up having is the mid 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX having to hold the line in scenarios, the CT or ToD until mid 1944 when the LF.Mk XVIe can finally be used.
What do you mean 'Without the LF.Mk VIII'? Who said AH shouldn't have a LF.VIII? It should and its a good choice.
Again the issue of armament is relatively small. However, what would adding a 25 lbs Spit XVI do to address that?
It would be much more practical to simple utilize the LF.XVIe as a substitute for a LF.IX or earlier LF.XVI rather then the VIII. But as I said given no other choice that would be fine
Given you are a Luftwaffe fan I cannot help but see your advocation of just the F.Mk IX and LF.Mk XVI as a ploy to face weaker Spitfires.
You would be wrong and quite frankly your whole line of reasoning as explained in your post is dubious at best. As I said the the choice between an E wing with .50s is hardly worth batting an eye over, ordnance in events and scenarios is set by the CMS, in ToD by the mission.
The CT will already be facing 'weaker Spitfires' in that the Spit V (which sees more use in the CT then any other) will be reduced to 12 lbs. All the CT CMs currently sub up for allied planes as is and I am sure they would listen to any reasonable argument for the XVIs inclusion, as long as its at 18lbs boost. At 25lbs it all but ensures that you will never see it in the CT, Events scenarios or ToD. The CT is all but dead any way. With the main having a Fighter Town area set aside and ToD I can't see many folks choosing the CT over those 2.
As I said to Kev, the LF.XVIe would be the most practical choice. Worrying about .50s over .303s is just ridiculous in the overall scheme of things.
Since you seem stuck on this I assume its because my reply here:
Clipped-wing LF.XVIE with bubble top just 'cause it looks cool...
That was really intended as sarcasm more then an actual request...
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I think most people are right about Spit LF 16. Spit LF 16 with +25 boost is too uber. It can maintain 5000+ fpm climb up to 10,000 feet.:eek: My goodness even the latest fighter jets in the 1950s (Mig 15 and F-80/86) can barely maintain that kind of fpm rate.
I would love an explanation if +25 boost spit LF 16 was widely used in 1944-45.
The 5000+fpm climb rate is a little misleading.
It is only possible with a cold engine and the radiators wired shut. Climbrate is actually closer to 4500-4700fpm (under 5k only) in fighting trim.
Bruno - Fine then why not just call me a liar instead of being an arse and *****footing around it.
Take another look at the thread you refer to, he also states if it was at 25lbs it would probably be perked.
I WONDER WHY.
Possibly for the exact reasons we discussed over the phone? The same reasons you seem to think are coming out of thin air.
Oh so we can let incorrect armaments and loadouts slide when it suits you?
Longer range could be accounted for by limiting fuel loading (no loading of wing tanks I assume), easy.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Bruno,
You made the assertion that the LF.Mk XVIe was more suitable to sub for the LF.Mk IX than the LF.Mk VIII would be. Please back up that assertion and explain what performance differences the LF.Mk VIII has that outweigh the LF.Mk XVIe's completely unsuitable armament. I am assuming both at at +18lbs boost here.
Don't just make assertions like that without explaining why you see things that way.
I guess you can't read... I will stop short of calling you a liar, because I know what I wrote but please post where I said 'performance differences':
Here's what I actually said:
The LF.VIII could stand in but its longer range is less then ideal as a sub for an LF.IX
and
No a VIII has some different characteristics that make it a less suitable substitute for a LF.IX. If forced with no other choice then yes a VIII could fill that roll.
Now since you are 'making demands' for me to 'back things up' I expect you to do the same or apologize for being wrong.
Also, if you had waited a few minutes for my last reply you would have gotten an answer.
-
Bruno - Fine then why not just call me a liar instead of being an arse
I called it what I think it was, exaggerating on your part. I thought I was clear...
-
As I think it has already been covered, its unlikely we will see any +25 lb Merlin 66 Spits as they dont really fill a planeset gap since we have the Spit XIV.
As to the Spit 16e, it may be introduced at +18 lbs to fill the 1944 set.
Spit 16e and Spit 9e, at 18lbs are for all intent and purpose, the same a/c. One has a Packard Merlin 266, one has a British made Merlin 66, made to the same specs. Both had clipped wings sometimes, and both had models with the broad chord rudder (the pointy top rudder).
We might see a Spit LF VIII to gap the Spit F.IX-Spit 16e. We may not.
...and just to clarify, a Spit 16 does not by definition make it a +25 lb model. It ran on 100 octane in service before going to 150. So either is possible to model.
-
What is the difference between "different characteristics" and "performance differences"? They seem to be interchangable to me.
And no, the CMs in the CT cannot disable ordnace options or the .50 cals.
I am on the fence in regards to the +25lbs boost, but 4,700fpm at sea level doesn't sound nearly so bad as 5,700fpm at sea level did. As I recall, Pyro did say that it might be re-evaluated sometime in the future.
The fact is that we need to maximize the coverage with can get out of as few types as possible. That is why I suggested the list that has been argued over in so many threads since then. Pyro read those threads, and basically agreed though he thinks the +25lbs boost XVI would be too much for the MA and would overlap the XIV perhaps, and that the VIII may be extraneous. Given his take on the +25lbs XVI I agree that the VIII may be extraneous, but I would still like to see it for other reasons I stated in the second post in this thread.
My original list was:
Spitfire Mk Ia: 1940 (Merlin II at +12lbs boost)
Spitfire Mk Vb: 1941-mid 1942 (Merlin 45 at +12lbs boost)
Spitfire F.Mk IX: mid 1942-mid 1943 (Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost, no rockets or .50 cals)
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII: mid 1943-late 1944 (Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost, full span universal wing)
Spitfire F.Mk XIV: late 1944-end of war, perked (Griffon 65 at +21lbs boost to justify the being perked, full span wing)
Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe: late 1944-end of war (Merlin 266 at +25lbs boost, clipped "e" wing)
Seafire L.Mk III: most produced Seafire (Merlin 55M at +18lbs boost)
I felt that list gave good coerverage of the entire war and all theaters. As good as could be achieved with seven versions of the Spitfire in anycase.
-
What is the difference between "different characteristics" and "performance differences"? They seem to be interchangable to me.
Are you playing games with me? I explained what I meant right here:
The VIII will have longer range over an LF.XVI It will also be slightly heavier which will marginally affect acceleration and climb. Range will be an issue in ToD, events, and scenarios.
Spitfire Mk VIII Testing (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8tac.html) (merlin 63 but compares IX and VIII).
And no, the CMs in the CT cannot disable ordnance options or the .50 cals.
I don't care anything about the CT but I never said ordnance options could be set in the CT (actually then can but that's here nor there). I certainly said nothing about disabling .50s. What I said was the difference in lethality between the .303s and .50 are irrelevant as the majority of lethality rest in the Hizookas.
The fact is that we need to maximize the coverage with can get out of as few types as possible. That is why I suggested the list that has been argued over in so many threads since then. Pyro read those threads, and basically agreed though he thinks the +25lbs boost XVI would be too much for the MA and would overlap the XIV perhaps, and that the VIII may be extraneous. Given his take on the +25lbs XVI I agree that the VIII may be extraneous, but I would still like to see it for other reasons I stated in the second post in this thread.
Maximizing coverage would include everything that Pyro has suggested. Pyro never said a 25lbs boost would be too much for the main. Thats what kev says Pyro said. What Pyro said on this forum was for the main it would probably be perked and all but useless for the CMs. I will quote it again:
I think there's been a general consensus in the various threads about how to change the Spit lineup that I pretty much concur with.
There has been some advocacy for a +25lb boost clipped wing Mk XVI. I really don't see what hole that fills. It would pretty much fall into the same category as the XIV. I have no qualms with that plane, but I think going with a 2000+hp version of it would be a waste as it would end up perked and CM's wouldn't use it much either.
__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Now you agreed with this in other threads, I can quote you if you like.
Even with a XVI @ 18 lbs boost doesn't mean the VIII will have no use in AH, it will.
As I said a XVIe while a '44 plane can fill in for a '43 LF.IX, the .50s won't mean a whole lot overall...
-
Bruno,
You may claim that, but it isn't what happens in practice. In practice anything that can be used as a reason not to allow a Spit to be used is used for that. We have, for a long time, had people who insist the Spitfire Mk IX we have is a 1944 Spitfire due to the .50 cal options and RAF/Spitfire fans asking for a better free Spitfire are being silly.
As I have said I am on the fence in regards to +25lbs boost. I was pretty well convinced that +18lbs was the way to go until the new information was obtained that reduces the +25lbs Spitfire's climb by 1000fpm. I am content with either boost rating. My personal hope right now is that we get the LF.Mk VIII, though I am not really expecting it. Unfortunately for me I really don't like the clipped wings or .50 cals so without the LF.Mk VIII I am still going to be stuck in the F.Mk IX if I use a Spitfire. That is really why I want the Mk VIII so much.
-
Unfortunately for me I really don't like the clipped wings or .50 cals so without the LF.Mk VIII I am still going to be stuck in the F.Mk IX if I use a Spitfire. That is really why I want the Mk VIII so much.
Well clipped wing aside a VIII will have a range advantage over a LF.IX or LF.XVI and this (IMHO)will far out weigh the advantage 2 x .50 will have over 4 x .303 in ToD and events.
I agree that a LF.VIII is a good choice in addition to the LF.XVI but if I were a Spit flyer I would rather take up a LF.IX or LF.XVI over the LF.VIII. I am not sure what your aversion is to clipped wings is but to each his own. Better roll verses better flat turning doesn't make much difference to me...
-
I believe (other thread) difference between clipped/non-clipped turning circle was somewhere in the vicinty of 42ft.
Roughly 200fpm per 5000ft less climb.
Better roll.
As your so fond of quoting Pyros post, why do you think he thought it may need need to be perked then?
a) Because it looks good.
b) For the exact reasons I said from talking to him on the phone
c) Just about any other reason not to have a Spit
-
Bruno,
Not all LF.Mk IXs were clipped. Most LF.Mk VIIIs were not clipped. All LF.Mk XVIs were clipped. I already explained why the .50s are a bad, bad thing when trying to use it in 1943 scenarios. That you wouldn't care is moot because you aren't the one making the call and if people insist a Merlin 61 Spitfire is a 1944 Spitfire due to .50 cals and ignore the poorer performance why do you think they'll be ok with a Merlin 266 Spitfire armed with .50 cals? Range rarely comes into it in AH.
That said, the reason I don't like clipped wings is purely for aesthetic reasons. It has nothing to do with performance.
-
As your so fond of quoting Pyros post, why do you think he thought it may need need to be perked then?
Having it perked doesn't equate to:
IT'S TOO GOOD FOR THE MA.
So who cares why he thinks it would end-up perked... Don't try and change up what you claim he said now...
He didn't say it would definitely be perked he said:
I have no qualms with that plane, but I think going with a 2000+hp version of it would be a waste as it would end up perked and CM's wouldn't use it much either.
That's a far cry from what you claim...
He said the same thing about the P-47N. It was released unperked and he said he would see how it goes.
Not all LF.Mk IXs were clipped. Most LF.Mk VIIIs were not clipped. All LF.Mk XVIs were clipped.
I have seen pics labeled as Spit LF.XVI w./ Packard 266 without clipped wings. I know most were produced with clipped wings and IMHO a XVI in Ah should be clipped but unless I am completely wrong not all were.
I already explained why the .50s are a bad, bad thing when trying to use it in 1943 scenarios
I don't ever re-call seeing you in a scenario, even in the current Malta scenario they are using Spit Vs with 16lb boost which it wasn't cleared for until Aug '42. Hardly an indication of endemic Spitfire hatred on the part of CMs. Players OTOH whine about everything, but so what. I think you are exaggerating, in fact I know you you are. Please quote a scenario CM or CT CM stating they disallowed the F.IX because it had .50 cals.
You may be stuck on this issue but from what I see you are the only one. I can ignore it just for that reason. Hell, you don't need to post a quote from a CM just link to any thread that shows the F.IX was disallowed in any event, scenario or CT set-up due to .50 cals...
I am out for the evening I will check back for your links / quotes...
-
To be fair, the 2x 50cal option is about like having the 8x303 option, only you get 2x20mm as well. I put most of my 20mm clip of a spit9 into a Ju88, just popped a flap off of him and made him lose a little gas. So I open up with my 50 cals as he's getting away and I set him on fire at 800+ distance within 50 rounds.
They are powerful guns.
EDIT: Just wanted to say that, for the most part, having read this thread since it started, I'd have to agree with Bruno. No offense at all Kev, but it could be seen that you're jumping the gun by others.
-
I am for the VIII, but +25 in it may be a tad too much.
Look at JF275 with a Merlin 66.
Over 5000 fpm untill what, 11K. Tops at 406 mph. Carries nearly 50% more fuel than a normal Mk IX.
This bird will outlcimb and outmaneuver our XIV. The XIV is just faster and has the 50 cal option.
I am not sure if this bird has the extended wing, - but the link Bruno gave was to an extended wing version whith smaller ailerons, - the high alt version so to say. Preferred by some to quote rollrate on.
Anyway, I think Karnak's list is rather good, and bear in mind that Pyro is peeking at all this data and debates,- so we'll just have to see.