Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on August 06, 2001, 05:44:00 PM
-
This is partly in response to the 128 post thread "The Jugfire" in which the slight differences between our P-47D-11 and the real P-47D-11 have been argued. The P-47 is practically never seen in the MA, yet people avidly argue and counter argue the slight inaccuracies, which seem to boil down to 1) it is 390lbs to light with HTC is going to fix and 2) it does not have the paddle bladed propellor that it had in reality when it went into combat.
On the other hand when Pongo, Nashwan, Funkedup or myself bring up the problems with the Spitfire MkIX, the second most common aircraft in the MA, there is pracitically no response. There is no one blasting us or supporting us, we're just ignored.
Originally posted by Vruth in the "The Jugfire" thread:
As for the Spit IX hybrid, don't fly with 50 cals. Personally, I'd rather see more work on more aircraft than changing existing ones that work fine (except for the poor-ole P-38).
Vruth,
I did't want to hijack the P-47D-11 thread, so I'm replying to you here.
I don't. But most people do.
How would the Luftwaffe fans like it, or react, if HTC had given them a Bf109G-2, had the gun options of a Bf109G-10, used an American drop tank and simply called it a Bf109G?
They'd go bloody ballistic about anti-German conspiracies, is what they'd do.
The kind of response you gave has the same problem as the attitude of people who believe that all aircraft should be freely availabe and that it doesn't matter what you fly. If the Spitfire is wrong, its wrong. It doesn't matter if I am the one flying it or not. If I like Hurrican MkIs and everybody else is flying 1944/45 stuff the game won't be very fun for me because I will simply be spending more time to get to the fight, and then being an easy mark for all but the incompetent.
The aircraft should all be modeled as closely as possible to their real counterparts.
Like the Bf109G, there was no generic Spitfire MkIX. Why do we get specific Bf109 modeling and not specific Spitfire modeling?
Our Spitfire MkIX should have the option for the 50 cals removed, the option for the rockets removed, the 300 litre drop tank replaced with a British drop tank and then be relabled to "Spitfire F.Mk IX"
I am not calling for any new Spitfires to be added, just for the existing one to be fixed.
[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
Karnak, I think your whole idea of mucking with the Spitfire is a stupid as Funked. Besides, Spitfires were rarely even seen in the skies during WWII and probably shouldn't be as well represented here as they are now.
SOB
Didn't want to ignore ya! ;)
-
Cheep shot at the German fans.
What is there to argue about. The 1944 spit should be alot better. Who could argue.
Its like expecting a big interesting thread about the earth being round.
They must know about the spit. Let them get some versions in to add a new one.
You sound like you want those 50s removed from the spit we have. They could probably do that real easy if you like.
-
I want my spit to have a Paddle Bladed Paddle or something ...... :)
hehe
-
So you want to get rid of those .50cals and use .303 instead ?
HTC PLEASE do it! :D
Yep, G-2 with G-10 armament option could be nice :cool:
-
i think they should fix the f.ix and add a clipped wing lf.ix
clipped wing lf.ix would kick bellybutton but would still be un perked.
-
I like the sound of .303s hitting my Hellcat. I can actually hear the cursing of the spit pilot over the pings.
AKDejaVu
-
Pongo,
I think it is good that the fans of the Luftwaffe aircraft are that vocal. It gets things fixed. RAF aircraft fans seem far and few between however.
I don't think we urgently need a new Spit, the one we have seems quite adequate based on its usage numbers. I just want the one we have to be done correctly.
AKDejaVu,
The last F6F I ran into seemed less than resistant to my 20mm cannon. :D
(Actually, the last time I had a Spitfire vs. F6F fight, I was in the F6F. Spit lost his wings to my 50 cals).
[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
A clipped wing lfIX will get perked. Its 20mph (360-370mph on the deck) faster at AH alts than the SpitIX we have now and climbs near or over 5000fpm, (better than La7, G10 AND Tempest) and rolls faster than the FW190 at medium combat speeds.
This will get perked sooner or later considering how much the current spit IX gets used.
You may try to deny it spit fans but you cant have this plane with those performance figures YOU GUYS POST OVER AND OVER and not get it perked due to overuse.
With supposed performance like you guys say why did the British even bother with the Griffon spits???
-
most people who fly spits dont care anything about accuracy they fly it cause it gets kills for them.
Its basically a fast food item. Taste is secondary to convenience...........
High reward with little involved.........
Why would they even fathom changing it......
However a well flown spit is hell for me..... amazing what some can do with it.
As for the vocal lw if you look at those who have been branded by the "luftwhiner" label most of them are killers in there aircraft already. When they suspect something is wrong ( for whatever reason) whether it makes it harder or easier to kill with they express it.
When the niki was short changed on ammo niki pilots weren't screaming about it. They got kills in it so what did it matter.
Anyway anything that is intended to replicate (as much as possible) history is great and I would agree with Karnak 100%........
-
If you go offline and goto f8 view,turn the beast over so you can see it's belly you will see that the wingtips (at least on the IX) are a seperately modelled piece....i think we will see a clipped spit and i for one can't wait.
<S> HTC
Steely
-
GRUNHERZ,
Yes, the Spitfire LF.Mk IX is 20mph faster on the deck than our Spitfire F.Mk IX. How ever 320 + 20 does not equal 360 or 370.
I do agree with you that the Spitfire LF.Mk IX would end up as a perk though. Probably about 8 points in cost.
As perk planes are not useful, IMHO, I am not asking for new Spitfires. Just for the one we have to be fixed.
-
GRUNHERZ is obviously confusing a normal Spitfire LF.IX with the "Basta" modified version.
Normal Spitfire LF.IX does 340mph at SL, 370mph at 8k and 405mph at 22k(about equal to Fw 190A-5), initial climbrate is around 4600fpm.
-
clipped wing w9ould be faster tho and roll better
a clipped wing spitfire lf.ix is my favorite operational fighter and i want it
it would ruuuuuuuuuuulllllleeeeeee
it would eat n1k for LUNCH and spit it out
-
Im sure you guys posted a SL speed of 360-370mph for a lf Mk.IX.
However if im mistaken and those are the Mk. "basta" :) SL speed figures im sorry.
-
GRUNHERZ,
Whoever posted that was very, VERY optimistic.
The Spitfire MkXIV desn't even do 370 at sea level. Spit 14 does 355 to 363 depending on your source.
-
Spitfire LF.VIII(Merlin 66 engine with "Basta" mods@+25lbs boost) = 362mph at SL, initial climbrate 5580fpm. :)
Mk VIII is practically the same as Mk IX, except for the retracting tailwheel.
-
Spits are simplistic to fly here...
190's are more challenging.. and rewarding after the kill.. takes alittle (lot) more thought and good flying to keep the fight on your terms in a 190A8/5 compared to spit
-
DeeZCamp,
And that has what to do with wanting a historically accurate Spitfire IX?
Oh, I see. You're suggesting that the Spitfire isn't a valid fighter.
Please take your elitism elsewhere.
[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
Karnak, I apologize for not responding in more detail than I did in the "jugfire" thread.
I agree with ya, the Spit9, IMO, needs to be modeled and armed correctly, historically, etc.......
I just got caught up in the furor in disputing what the Jug "should" be modeled like, factory stock, or combat ready.
Sorry for the oversight on my part.. :(
[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: eddiek ]
-
I can't recall the total number of times it's been said. Ever since Day One of AH most everyone has agreed that if an option wasn't available in the war, it shouldn't be made. Turns out HTC did just that, by action or omission. The Spit Mk XI we've got, from what I've gathered by these posts, had no .50 cal option and no rockets. I think there was something about a boost problem posted, but I can't say for certain. Since they weren't available to this aircraft, I say pull the options. If another Spit comes in to make up for the short-comming of having no .50 cal armed Spit, that's fine by me. Either way, pull the options and get this thing fixed.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/lie.gif)
-
"With supposed performance like you guys say why did the British even bother with the Griffon spits???
"
Which is exactly what happend to Spit development in WW2. Radical change was a luxury because of the development potential of the Spit IX and VIII. The pilots were not asking for anything better. The Germans for the most part were at a serios disadvantage against the Merlin Spits.
-
whaddahell?
Karnak wants the Spitfire Mk.IX to be revised so it's an actual Spitfire model, not just some generic average the numbers and see what we get model...
And you guys go off in some tangent about 190s being harder to fly, Spitfires being easy mode, throwing around number about it's top speed for reasons to not add it..
What a load, his first comment about players that like German planes was right, and is right.
You all DID notice all the squeaking about the German guns, roll rate, 109's ability to pull Gs, etc.. or am I the only one?
Karnak has a legitimate gripe.
-SW
-
Yep, karnak does have a legitamate argument. The reason that there aren't more vocal people about the Spit is that there are probably 5 people that play AH and fly the Spit because it was the one of the greatest warbirds ever made. The other Spit pilots like the AH spit because it can turn, and it has cannons. I'm no expert on Spitfires, don't get me wrong- but it couldn't hurt to have a 1940<?> (Mk V), 1942 (Mk IX), and a 1944 version of the spit. Yes, everyone will use the 1944 version of the spit, and possibly some N1K2 drivers might switch to it depending on the guns, but the Spit fans (all 5 of them) DO deserve to be put on equal footing with everyone else. Of course, that is just my opinion.
OH, and BTW- I'm fairly apathetic towards the Spit we have now, I can usually kill them in a fight. If the new Spit can hand every German plane its bellybutton like the Nik can, then I might be a more vocifirous opponent.
-
Karnak, good points and good to raise this issue.
SOB said the spits were RARELY SEEN?!?!?!?!?!
What does that mean? there were about 20.000 built and USED, and used extensively.
In the European theater from 1941 onwards, the Spit was the MAIN allied fighter for YEARS, if it ever got outnumbered by one, that is.
Subvariants of spits would by my opinion anly make AH better. HVY fighter and LW ppl may whine when the time comes, when a spit is a FAST plane, well, that is just the truth, the final spits were really fast, and the LF spits were really good at low alt. However, the absence of the wingtips also affects the stalling characteristics and turn rate in a negative way, so what is there to whine about???
Bring the spit 1, 7, LF variants (maybe an option in the hangar?), 14 and 19...yess
:D
-
Urchin,
I agree that there seems to be a distinct lack of true Spitfire fans. The reason it is the 2nd most common aircraft is, as you said, because it turns and has cannons and nothing to do with what it was or how important it was.
FYI, here is a crude Spitfire fighter types development by year:
1938
Spitfire Mk I (2 blade prop, no ejector stacks, flat cockpit hood & 4 .303s)
Spitfire Mk Ia
1940
Spitfire Mk Ib (2 Hispano MkI cannon with 60 rounds each, extremely prone to jamming)
Spitfire Mk IIa
Spitfire Mk IIb (2 Hispano MkI cannon with 60 rounds each, extremely prone to jamming)
1941
Spitfire Mk Va
Spitfire Mk Vb
Spitfire Mk Vc (4 cannon version with additional structual strength and armor)
1942
Spitfire F.Mk IX (FM we have in AH)
1943
Spitfire LF.Mk V (Mk V refitted for low alt ground attack due to availability of Mk IX)
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII (The best merlin Spit)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXc
Spitfire HF.Mk IXc
Spitfire Mk XII (The first Griffon Spit, single stage Griffon II or IV with clipped wings)
1944
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (Armament options we have in AH)
Spitfire F.Mk XIVc
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (Bubble cannopy and camera equipment, additional fuel)
Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe (Same as LF.IXe, but with a Packard Merlin 266)
1945
Spitfire LF.Mk XVI (Bubble canopy added to Merlin Spit)
Spitfire F.21 (Final wartime Spit. Redesigned wing to eliminate wing warping, armed with 4 Hispano MkII cannon with 150 rounds each. Griffon 61 or 64)
I think that it is likely that any post-1942 Spitfire would have to be a perk plane. The Spit is the ideal fighter for environments like the MA of AH.
Currently a good Fw190D-9 or Bf109G-10 pilot should almost never lose to a Spitfire they are aware of in AH. The Spit pilot can force a draw, but due to speed and climb it is the 109 or 190 pilot who can keep playing until they get the shot they need. Just avoid HOs, that evens the fight.
Angus,
SOB was joking around. He knows that.
Yes the later Spits are good, and IMHO, they are too good to be introduced to the MA unperked. The Spitfire perfectly fits the play style of the MA.
[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
The Spit had one major weakness in WW2...range. Thats it. If it had the range of the US fighters we'd of all been building spits out the ying yang. You put late model spits in the arena and your gonna hear some howling nodoubt.
xBAT
-
Sad sad sad.
Now instead of a reasonable exchange about the need for a later mark spitfire you have a soap box for SW to flame his favorite whipping boys.
I guess the thread will be long if thats what you wanted Karnak.
I think the sheer undeniablity of the need for a 1944 spit is all that keeps the discussions short. Most of the blab in those LW aircraft discussions you apparently want to emulate with a Spit thread is nothing to do with really talking about the aircraft. Its mean allagations and chest pounding.
Like we have here now!
-
Pongo, you are clueless. Perhaps if they hadn't gone off on their tangent about how LW planes are superior and Spitfires are easy to fly, I would of only added stuff about Spitfires.
-SW
-
Pongo,
I haven't seen much chest pounding here. I also don't see any "SWulfe fodder". I fear you may be a little "gun shy" after being attacked, wrongly I must say, by him a few too many times.
A late war Spitfire would be nice for those who have the Perk Points to pay for it. I really don't think that the late war Spifires will be anything besides perked.
I guess a Spitfire LF.Mk IX might not be perked, but it would be the new "most hate and whined about aircraft in AH".
In any case, what it boils down to is that we should have accurately represented Spitfires in AH. It was one of the most important types of aircraft in WWII and it is very common in AH, even if many of those who fly it are unfamiliar with its "stats".
-
SOB said the spits were RARELY SEEN?!?!?!?!?!
What does that mean?
It can only mean 1 of 2 things:
[list=1]- Spitfires were rarely seen in WW2
- SOB is full of s#!t[/list=a]
I know what option I'm going with. I'm suprised that you haven't quite figured it out yourself ;)
And Karnak... I don't think you'll get alot of grief in regards to making the spit accurate as long as it means going back in time <relative> as opposed to forward. If you're bucking for a new improved Spitfire, I'd tend to think "dream on". If you're simply going for a historically accurate 1943 Spitfire then there should be little resistance.
I have a tendancy to think its better to be accurate at the technical level. If the Spit model HTC is modelling had a different loadout than the one we use... it should be fixed.
BTW... I call most people "SpitDweebs" because almost everyone I know that flies a spit is a dweeb. It really has nothing to do with the plane. ;)
AKDejaVu
-
AKDejaVu,
Actually, I'm requesting an accurate 1942 Spitfire. We don't have any variety of 1943 Spitfire.
What we have is the FM of a 1942 Spitfire coupled with the gun and ordinance options of a 1944 Spitfire.
A 1943 Spitfire would be considerably deadlier than what we have.
The important thing is to have whichever we end up with accurate. As it is, it sin't even close to accurate.
-
1. SOB was joking you tards!
2. Why the Spit is not discussed much on the UBB:
a. Experienced/addicted players are overrepresented on this BBS. They are not only more likely to post to the BBS, they are also more likely to post at a high rate.
b. Experienced/addicted players usually want to become "good" at the game.
c. Many players think becoming "good" means achieving a high kill:death ratio.
d. If one wishes to post a high kill:death ratio, one must eventually learn to kill without very much turning.
e. There are 10-12 better planes than the Spitfire for killing without very much turning. The keys for getting a high kill:death ratio are speed, guns, and more speed.
f. As a result of a-e, the majority of experienced/addicted players are more interested in other fighters. As a result these players and the volume of posts they generate are not focused on the various issues surrounding the greatest fighter in the history of air combat.
[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
1942,1943.. whatever.
Just making it clear that "I want modelling accuracy" does not always equate to "undermodelled!". This should be one of those cases where that is recognized.
AKDejaVu
-
Karnak, a good Fw190D-9 or Bf109G-10 pilot should almost never lose to a Spitfire and a good Spitfire pilot should never lose to a D9 or G10. About our actual SpitIX, test its climb rate at 15-20k compared to G10 or D9 you'll be really surprised. Test its initial dive speed compared to G10 or D9 and you'll be again surprised. Compare their acceleration at any alt above 10k and you'll be again more surprised.
Remember that this is not a boom&zoom arena, we have always a lot of warnings: icons, radar dots, radar bars, black dots in distance, etc. In this environment the top speed advantage of D9 or G10 means little compared with the Spit characteristics, and obviously, the Spit will be always a much more succesfull aircraft.
-
About our actual SpitIX, test its climb rate at 15-20k compared to G10 or D9 you'll be really surprised. Test its initial dive speed compared to G10 or D9 and you'll be again surprised. Compare their acceleration at any alt above 10k and you'll be again more surprised.
Too much testing for me, but Hammer has already done it. http://www.netaces.org/home.html#title (http://www.netaces.org/home.html#title)
Climb rate between 15 and 20k. The G10 beats the Spit by a large margin, the D9 by a narrower one.
Dive acceleration, the G10 and D9 both beat the Spit IX at all but the lowest speeds.
Level speed acceleration, the G10 and D9 both beat the Spitfire comprehensively. Only at 25k does the Spit overtake the Dora, and only at 30k does it pass the G10.
The current Spit IX is modelled after one of the first 300 or so Spit IXs to be built. The next 5000 or so all had improved performance. They were produced and used from early 1943 on.
The possible options for a late war RAF fighter are:
Tempest (already perked, and very high priced too)
Spit XIV (not here, unlike most of it's contemporaries from other nations. High priced perk when it arrives)
Meteor (High priced perk if it ever gets modelled)
Those are the aircraft that were actually introduced in 1944, comparable to the mainstream unperked rides in the MA, like the Dora, G10, La7, P51 etc
The main RAF fighter at that time was the Spit LF IX. Very few, if any, of the basic Spit F IXs were still in use then.
The only realistic option (also the worst option, for an RAF fan) that will introduce a post 1942 unperked British fighter, is the Spit IX LF, HF, or F with Merlin 63. All will be faster than the current AH SPit, by up to 20mph at low level, slightly more if clipped wing. All will be much slower than the La7, P51, Dora, G10 etc.
If the perk system classifies an early 43 prop fighter, that was produced and used in huge numbers, with the likes of the Ta152, F4U-1c, Me262, P-51H, and F8F, then there is something very wrong with the perk system.
Remember that this is not a boom&zoom arena, we have always a lot of warnings: icons, radar dots, radar bars, black dots in distance, etc. In this environment the top speed advantage of D9 or G10 means little compared with the Spit characteristics, and obviously, the Spit will be always a much more succesfull aircraft.
Much more successfull? Last full tour, the Dora had a kill death against the Spit of 1.56 to 1.
Speed means more in such an enviroment, where you can tell an opponents identity immediately, you can engage or disengage at will. Spot a high Spit and just run, he will never catch you. Blow you e advantage, or get caught by a Spit, and again just run, he will never catch you. Against a good pilot, the Spit driver has less chance. Perhaps that is why your kill death ratio against the Spit IX is better than your (very good) kill/death ratio as a whole, Mandoble.
[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
-
I tend to agree with those who say the spitfire is not a formidble opponent in the MA. It has never had a 1 to 1 K/D as a whole, in the 4 tours I've played. One on One I have VERY little to fear from the plane, in any of the 190s, and all the 109s but the F4. However, in a huge "furball" it does get significantly better because furballs are more turning and opportunity snapshots, rather than tracking shots. On the whole, I've got to agree with those who are A. Asking for the Spit IX we have to be correctly modelled, and B. asking ford a 1943 or 1944 spit to use. (Even if it means another 20 mph on the deck- it would still only bring the spit to the level of the 109G2-the G10 would outrun it handily.) However, those historical enthusiasts of the plane must realize that if we got a better version of the Spitfire (i.e. faster)- it WOULD become the most used plane in the arena. If it were faster than the N1k2, many of those who fly that plane would switch over. I'm not sure exactly what my point is, except maybe to inform people that if a 1944 spit is added, 95% of the spit drivers would fly it instead of the Spit IX and the Spit V, sort of rendering them pointless in the MA.
-
S! Karnak
The reason the Spit IXLF or Spit VIII is not modelled is that if it were, it would soon become the most popular plane in AH.
The current Spit IX climbs at nearly 1000ft slower than the Spit IXLF or VIII. And the acceleration of the Spit IXLF or VIII would put the current version to shame as well. Speeds would be nearly identical.
The highest scoring living RAF Ace, Johnnie Johnson, (38 kills) said he preferred the Spit IXLF to the Spit XIV. He thought of the Spit XIV as not a true Spit, because it had a different feel, not the same lightness, plus the prop rotated in the opposite direction. The Spit XIV may have been a better aircraft tactically, but as far as a pure dogfighter, the Spit IXLF was superior.
A properly modelled Spit IXLF, in the furball enviroment of AH, would be incredibly successful. We are talking a plane with the climb better than a FW190D, with similar acceleration, and with the turn rate of the current Spit IX. (There was no weight gain to speak of with the upgrade to the LF model, all the gains were accomplished with supercharger tuning and higher compression)
All of these arguments are still not enough of a reason for this aircraft not to be modelled. It should be. Whether that happens, is another question.
-
S!
Forgot about the speed on the deck. That would be increased by about 15mph. Speed at best altitude would stay in the 405mph range.
-
So, Spits were widely used in WWII??? Damn, ya learn something new every day! :D
Seriously tho', I think Karnak makes a good point, and it'd be nice to see specific models like other planes instead of generic ones.
As a side note, thanks for the thread Karnak. I've never been all that interested in Spitfires and never payed any thought to thier model designations. As far as I knew, V, IX, etc were the most specific designations they had. I've probably read otherwise before, but since it wasn't a major issue it just kind of slipped by me. I just got Poles in Defence of Britain, so I guess I'll crack it open tomorrow and start readin'! :)
SOB
-
Buzzbait,
I know how Jonnie Johnson felt about the two, and that is a valid position.
I have read that other pilots, admittedly not as high scoring, loved the MkXIV. It is a matter of taste I think.
Unfortunately I have to inform you that Johnnie Johnson died earlier this year, in the UK.
-
Ive heard and read the same about the Mk.XIV.
Basically they said it handled like crap compared to the mkIX. That it was hell on take-off, and that it wasnt really a spit anymore.
So it seems to be fast and all but more like the USAAF and LW fighters than previous spits in behavior.
-
(http://www.aviation.nmstc.ca/Eng/Collection/image/sd111a.jpg)
-
the spit looks like a racer, not a murdurous killer like the 109's...anyway, I do agree that the spit has to be moddelled historically.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
It can only mean 1 of 2 things:
[list=1]- Spitfires were rarely seen in WW2
- SOB is full of s#!t[/list=a]
I know what option I'm going with. I'm suprised that you haven't quite figured it out yourself ;)
And Karnak... I don't think you'll get alot of grief in regards to making the spit accurate as long as it means going back in time <relative> as opposed to forward. If you're bucking for a new improved Spitfire, I'd tend to think "dream on". If you're simply going for a historically accurate 1943 Spitfire then there should be little resistance.
I have a tendancy to think its better to be accurate at the technical level. If the Spit model HTC is modelling had a different loadout than the one we use... it should be fixed.
AKDejaVu
jeez something HAS changed since i left.i agree with what you say AKDeja and my answer to the options you give is no.2 :)
'hardly any spits in WW2' ROFLWLAL (wildly like a lunitic) :)
shame to see another stab at LW in here though.tends to piss me off.
-
Karnak, I know more about 190s, 109s,-well mostly all German made WW2 aircraft-, American planes, Macchi series, and Japanese planes...
but what you are asking for is for the current in game Spitfire MkIX to be revised to be a Spitfire F. Mk.IX?
Then to have a Spitfire VII or XIV to be added?
If I'm wrong, correct me.
But would this keep you from promoting for the Mosquito for a few months? ;)
-SW
-
I'd love to see a sim accurately model an Spit LF IX! It certainly easily meets any criteria for inclusion that I can think of. I think my Spitfire of choice though would have to be a HF VIII :) I prefer to be on top ;)
-
To make the "Spitfire MkIX" in AH into a more correct 1942 model Spitfire F.IX
1. Remodel 3d shape - move cannon to inboard mountings, shorten air intake under nose.
2. Replace German 300l droptank with 30 and/or 90 gallon "slipper" droptank.
3. Remove "E wing"(2x20mm+2x.50in) and 3.5" rockets from armament options.
4. Fix minor FM issues.
Then add a RAAF HF.VIII with 4x20mm! Muahahaha!!! :D
[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: juzz ]
-
I dont think a Spit VIII ever rolled with 4 cannons. Or a Spit IX for that matter. They did have the capability but has anyone ever seen a shred to prove it was done?
-
SWulfe,
I am just asking for the Spitfire MkIX we have, which has the FM of a Spitfire F.MkIX, to have the gun and ordinance options corrected.
I am not requesting any additional Spitfires from any year.