Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: funked on August 16, 2000, 12:53:00 AM
-
Gotcha RAM!!!
-
NO ! STFU NOW
-
(http://www.rivertown-computers.com/cmj/fingersmiley.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-16-2000).]
-
Nah Funked, if you want to wind people up you want to say that a perk for the buffs would be to have a 20mm tail gun! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Regards
'Nexx'
-
Those allies are really scared of 190D being a match for P51.. and it doesn't even turn as tight (that drops out many pilots that don't know way to maneuver properly in it)
So, be a man allies, don't be such lousy cowards requiring for perk on plane that has weak sides and good sides as well as in P-51!
There isn't any superior things.
Well.. if allies really are such cowards, then lets make it up by perking P-51 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-16-2000).]
-
Those LW pilots are really scared of seeing SpitXIV in the arena (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
mx22
-
Not as perk (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
I know everything about your tricks RAM, you just don't want me to have that many chances to fly in my Spitty.... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Hey how about perking SpitXIX hehe I think it was in squadrons before the end of the war, though never acctually flew in it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
mx22
-
I Want My Spit FourTeen..... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Yup, Spit XIV is definetly more superior to P51 and 190D.... PERK! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Even if I would fly that P-47 and Yak (hmm, lately I have flown those more than LWs), I would say 'PERK it"
Ram, I guess this means that Ta-152 and Me262 are too good planes to be ever put into the game, because if already dora is considered as perk plane among these few allied cowards (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I don't think the Fw190D-9 should be perked.
As far as later British planes, the LW fans don't seem to mind the idea of us getting an unperked Tempest MkV, although I can't for the life of me figure out why. The Tempest would, IMHO, be a far more imbalancing aircraft, in the MA, than the Spitfire Mk F.XIV. Up to about 15,000 to 20,000ft the Tempest would be superior and in AH the vast majority of the fighting takes place below 20,000ft. The only thing that will outrun a Fw190D-9 down low, barring jets, is a Tempest. The Tempest will also climb better, zoom climb better, roll and turn comparablly and is armed with 4 Hispano MkV 20mm cannon. The Hispano V has a muzzle velocity of 800 meters per second and a rate of fire of 800 rounds a minute, or, in other words, nearly the muzzle velocity of a Hispano II with the rate of fire of a MG151/20.
If the Spitfire Mk F.XIV is perked, what will be its companions in official Ubërdom? Lets try a theoretical list:
Spitfire Mk F.XIV (Jan, 1944)
Spitfire Mk F.21 (Mar, 1945)
Fury (???, 1945)
Meteor MkIV (???, 1945)
La7 (???, ????)
Ki100 (Jan, 1945)
P-47M (???, 1945)
P-80 (???, 1945)
B-29B (???, 1944)
Ta152 (???, 1945)
Me163 (???, 1944)
Me262 (???, 1944)
Ar234 (???, ????)
This is by no means intended to be a complete list and I don't have all of the dates of service memorized, hence the question marks. Here is my question: Why would I ever waste a perk on a Spitfire Mk F.XIV with those other monsters to chose from? The ammount that I personally play will probably get me no perks or one perk per tour. If I take a XIV, I am going to be meat on the table for some other player who flys more and earns a perk each night or every other night. Therefore I am going to have to take an Me262 instead of a late war Spitfire, just as I now fly the Bf109G-10 instead of the Spitfire MkIX. As I am not very good, I need to be able to escape and the only way to assure that is to take a plane that can outrun whatever is chasing it. Being able to run is half the fight.
My thought is this, is the Spitfire Mk F.XIV is modeled, don't perk it. If it is too powerful to model without perking it, don't bother modeling it at all.
Just some material for thought.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)BRING THE, NON-PERKED Fw190D-9 TO ACES HIGH (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Stop! This was a joke thread, just a troll to see if I could get RAM to post.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
the LW fans don't seem to mind the idea of us getting an unperked Tempest MkV, although I can't for the life of me figure out why
Feeded up Typhoon. Has incredible strenghts but also big drawbacks...bad turning (a Ta152H-0 at low altitudes was able to outturn it,as was demonstrated in a well documented engagement in last days of WWII), and that big torque...
Spitfire XIV has no big drawbacks. It should handle like a IX and run ,accelerate and climb like a G10.
That is a pure perk arena plane.
Tempest is an impressive plane, one to fear. But it has drawbacks as well as advantages.
Bring it as non-perk. I will support Tempest V over SpitXIV as non perk for RAF any day.
Mx22, Spitfire XIX was a recce unarmed aircraft...
Sure you can bring it as non perk plane and perk Tempest and Spit XIV (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
plese PLEASE Do it!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
it was a small typing mistake of making which i'm known for- I meant Spit XXI, you should have realized what I will ask hehe. There is nothing better in the world then write on this BBS words "SpitXIV" and then see how long it will take for you to search them out RAM (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (tsss don't tell this to my gf or I'll be in trouble (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
mx22
[This message has been edited by mx22 (edited 08-17-2000).]
-
mx22,
There was a Squadron of Spitfire Mk F.21s posted to the continent from March '45 on and they did do combat patrols over German held land, they just didn't encounter any of the increasingly rare Luftwaffe.
BTW, mark numbers on Spitfire/Seafires stop being Roman numerals from 21 on.
Funked,
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
The problem I see is that while the Spitfire Mk F.XIV may be too good for a non-perked MA aircraft, it isn't good enough to compete with the other aircraft that should be perked. It seems to me that it occupies and uncomfortable middle ground between perk and non-perk. Ah well. We'll just have to wait and see what HTC will do, add it as a non-perk, add it as a perk, or not add it at all.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
The problem I see is that while the Spitfire Mk F.XIV may be too good for a non-perked MA aircraft, it isn't good enough to compete with the other aircraft that should be perked. It seems to me that it occupies and uncomfortable middle ground between perk and non-perk. Ah well. We'll just have to wait and see what HTC will do, add it as a non-perk, add it as a perk, or not add it at all.
Sisu
-Karnak
Remember, perk planes are worth points...maybe some will be "expensive" some "cheap".
Anyway I dont see how is it outclassed by the rest of the perk planeset...by some planes for sure yes...(Me262, P47M,P51H) but not by othres (KI100, D13, Ar234 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)...)
Anyway remember you'll be fighting against mostly normal planes, not perk ones.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-17-2000).]
-
Did somebody say perk dollars? I wonder what color are they (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
mx22
-
Good point on the varied point cost of perks RAM. Maybe they'll do it that way.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Spit 21 is a bit of a beast (400 mph at sea level i believe - and thats before you start using 150 octane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) and planes like it (bearcat, P51H , jets etc.) should all be very very rare. Planes like the spit XIV mabye could be limited by instead of limiting them to the good players they could come available for 15 mins in a 2 hour period (but do not specify which 15 minutes) this way they wouldn't be that prevelent because a large number of people will miss there realease.
-
Originally posted by jmccaul:
Spit 21 is a bit of a beast (400 mph at sea level i believe - and thats before you start using 150 octane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) and planes like it (bearcat, P51H , jets etc.) should all be very very rare. Planes like the spit XIV mabye could be limited by instead of limiting them to the good players they could come available for 15 mins in a 2 hour period (but do not specify which 15 minutes) this way they wouldn't be that prevelent because a large number of people will miss there realease.
Pyro has already stated long time ago that even newbies can fly perk planes where aces can.
Perk planes does not mean that you gotta be ace or good to fly those.
-
Fishu,
They do mean that you have to play enough to earn them though. Given the amount that I can play, I'd not expect to get more than one ride in a perk plane per tour, if that.
Sisu
-
very interesting site (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)http://www.perkiestplane.com/
mostly luftwaffle
-
again http://www.perkiestplane.com/ (http://www.perkiestplane.com/)
enjoy
-
Expect to hear "Dorka" alot (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
- Jig, who does not want to relive the AW thingy with the D9.
-
Ditto Jigster. Although I expect we won't see it as HTC only has this progrma to worry about and I don't think Aces High will be entering "maintenance" mode (with all the bugs) any time soon - as AW had.
They do a good (darn good actually) job imo of nailing errors and bugs that crop up.
Except the bug that puts me at an enemy pilots "12" too often. I think that's a host setting! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
-
THE DORA IS A ***MONSTER*** IT HAS TO BE PERKED!!!!
Roflmoao at Ram. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Originally posted by SnakeEyes:
Roflmoao at Ram. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
You know what?
(http://www.rivertown-computers.com/cmj/fingersmiley.gif)
(useful smiley, hehe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
-
I say everything more powerful than my chosen ride should be perked.
I choose the....C-47!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Everything above it must be perked!!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Sisu
-Karnak
-
"Goonies High"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
For RAM,
(http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg)
-
Oh,man...is the most beautiful piston plane in history...
RAM-------->in love (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Which one? I don't see any beautiful planes on that picture (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
mx22
Originally posted by RAM:
Oh,man...is the most beautiful piston plane in history...
RAM-------->in love (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Here ya go RAM, your favorite aircraft and my favorite aircraft, er, playing. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-combatoverlake.jpg)
Sisu
-Karnak
-
I had to admit that FW looks like it's made for Fighting while Dwe.. uhh.. Spitfire is kind a cute (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
One Dora for me,Please (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Hell with it, model 'em both, after all, They
BOTH blow up real good when hit by main gun rounds (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(The Ostwind is coming,prepare to die,a lot)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Hi
Im new here so I have no clue what makes a "perk" plane. The Dora, MkXIV, Tempest, 262, 109K4, Ki 100, and Ki 84 should be made as regular planes because they were there for a good part of the last year of the war. However I dont think we should have any Ta-152s, 47Ms, or 51H. Both the 152 and 47M only saw service in the last 2 maybe 3 months of the war in numbers that barely break the teens. The 51H never even entered war service. If we get into this stupid "my favorite prototype" mindset well soon end up fighting the Korean War with F-86 and Mig-15 because they might have been in some designers mind sometime around 1945.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
For me the reason for "perk" planes is that if a plane is so good ,that as regular it can unbalance the arena, then perk it.
Nothing to do with numbers. With your teory, then ME262 should be in the regular planeset, because it was very numerous, and because it flew during the last year of the war.
Still a 550mph aircraft in regular planeset wont fit.
Same argument applied to the rest of the planes.
I never asked for a prototype plane, if not I'd be asking for a Go229. But 229 hasn't its place even in the perk planeset.
-
HI
540mph yes but if you modeled its limitations right just how many spitfire or 190 diehards would jump right in it. Is that why the dora or MkXIV are not in here, because they were too effective? BTW what would be different about a perk plane as opposed to regular one in gameplay?
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Grunherz this perk stuff is mostly BS. HTC said they would make some of the new planes available on a limited basis only in future versions. It is doubtful that standard planes like the F4U-4, Fw 190D-9, Spitfire Mk. XIV, Tempest Mk. V, etc. will fall in this category as they don't outperform some of the planes we already have. More likely this category will be for jets and "what if" prop planes that never made it into battle.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-19-2000).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
It is doubtful that standard planes like the F4U-4, Fw 190D-9, Spitfire Mk. XIV, Tempest Mk. V, etc. will fall in this category as they don't outperform some of the planes we already have
Spit XIV would outperform all the planes we currently have here.
Its a perk plane. Sorry funked, but I wont argue any more I dont want to be involved in this thing again.
-
RAM, for you to constantly root for the inclusion of the D-9, (which performs as well or better than the Spit 14 in many areas) while you insist that the Spit 14 does not belong, betrays either a blatant pro-Luftwaffe/anti-RAF bias or a lack of capability for analytical thought. Fortunately HTC are not afflicted with either of these shortcomings. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-19-2000).]
-
BTW If you don't want to be involved, don't post. I was answering Grunherz' question, not asking your opinion on the matter.
-
Originally posted by funked:
RAM, for you to constantly root for the inclusion of the D-9, (which performs as well or better than the Spit 14 in many areas)
Actually, Funked, I was in belief that the Spit XIV outperformed the d-9 in quite much every other category than max speed and roll. Is there somewhere a detailed comparison between the two?
Of course, if you have the performance figures handy (I do not), maybe you could post them?
I believe, that if introduced, the Spit XIV would render Spit IX completely obsolete. I came to this conclusion while reading some former posts that indicated that the Spit XIV actually did turn as well as the IX model while simultaneously outperforming it in every other imaginable category. So then there would be two models of Spits left quite much unused.
------------------
---
SageFIN
"The wolves are gathering, the stars are shifting...
come, join us in the hunt!"
---
-
As I sat here, gathering my Spit and Fw info, I realized that I really didn't want to get into this again. Everbody here knows that my favorite kite is the Spitfire Mk F.XIV and RAM's favorite kite is the Fw190D-9. They both had very impressive performance compared to earlier Spits and Fws, and yes, if added they would render Spit IXs and A-8s obsolete. The same is true of the C.205 to the C.202, the Bf109G-10 to the Bf109G-6, Bf109G-2 and Bf109F and the Spitfire MkIX to the Spitfire MkV. The only valid reason to not add either as a standard aircraft is if it would be too imbalancing in the Main Arena. We could discuss and argue over this forever, we have already pretty much beaten it to death. At this point we all hold our own personal opinions about it, but what really matters is something we don't know: What is HTCs opinion about it? Lets kill this topic until HTC adds BOTH the Spitfire Mk F.XIV and the Fw190D-9, perks or not. After that we will have a real context to compare their performance from within AH.
I don't know why we RAF fans and you LW fans are so antagonistc towards one another, its the Yanks that hold a disproportionate chunk of the planeset (and the top end of it as well). Lets stop fighting over this.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by funked:
RAM, for you to constantly root for the inclusion of the D-9, (which performs as well or better than the Spit 14 in many areas) while you insist that the Spit 14 does not belong, betrays either a blatant pro-Luftwaffe/anti-RAF bias or a lack of capability for analytical thought. Fortunately HTC are not afflicted with either of these shortcomings. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
LOL funked, good troll try (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)...
If I taught you seriously,as telling me that a 448mph fast plane that accelerates and climbs like a me109G10 and turns like a SpitfirIX is matched by a Fw190D-9, that accelerates way slower, is way slower (22 mph), climbs WAY worse and turns only slightly better than a fw190A8...then I'd tell you to go and take your medicines (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Funked,sorry that I didnt fell in this one,LOL! I have to take that post as a troll, it cant be anything else.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-19-2000).]
-
It's not a troll. I'm serious. Although I think maybe your analytical ability is OK, but you're not aware of all the facts. Here are some facts you don't seem to be aware of:
1. Fw 190D-9 with MW 50 does 440 mph @ 18,700 feet, and 380 mph at sea level. This is from RLM documents obtained by Vermillion. I'm sure he can post them again if you are in doubt. Pyro and HT have this data too - WB D-9 performs exactly to these figures. Spitfire XIV on the other hand does less than 420 mph at 18,700 feet and only 363 mph at sea level. The 446 mph figure was obtained at 25,700 feet. I get my Spitfire performance data here: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html)
So it is quite obvious that the D-9 will have a decisive (15 to 25 mph) speed advantage over the Spit XIV at common arena fighting altitudes (under 20,000 feet). Only above 20,000 feet will the Spit have a slight speed advantage.
2. The AFDU report only says the turning circle (radius) is identical to the Spit IX. It says nothing about turn rate. The plane is 1000 lb heavier than a Spit IX but with the same wing. I assure you the AH Spit XIV will turn worse than the AH Spit IX.
The difference between D-9 and Spit XIV will be a lot like the difference between A-5 and Spit IX. The Spit turns better and climbs better, but the 190 has superior speed and high-speed maneuverability.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-19-2000).]
-
lol funked look at the engine they tested that spit xiv with... a griffon 61, most XIVs were powered by the Griffon 65 except for VERY EARLY models, thats like comparing a Juma 213A and an -EB :P
XIV with Griffon 65 will be superior to D9 in speed, climb, turn... and btw I never heard of a D9 going 440 mph anywhere.
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 08-19-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 08-19-2000).]
-
What Nath11 said.
Plus, funked, SpitXIV mayb he heavier than IX. But that doesnt means it doesnt turn well. Spitfire IX is now the better turner in this game (apart of the V and the C202). If you see the difference between SpitV and SpitIX's turnrates you'll see that the turn lose is not that great.
you dont tell me anything about climbrates and accelerations. To compare a D9-SpitXIV like a A5-SpitIX is incorrect. A5 has comparable initial climbrate but it lags behind over 8K. Acceration suffers the same.
SpitXIV will climb better than D9 at all altitudes, so will accelerate the same.
Sorry, I dont see how is comparable a 190D9 with a SpitXIV
-
Originally posted by funked:
1. Fw 190D-9 with MW 50 does 440 mph @ 18,700 feet, and 380 mph at sea level. This is from RLM documents obtained by Vermillion. I'm sure he can post them again if you are in doubt. Pyro and HT have this data too - WB D-9 performs exactly to these figures. Spitfire XIV on the other hand does less than 420 mph at 18,700 feet and only 363 mph at sea level. The 446 mph figure was obtained at 25,700 feet. I get my Spitfire performance data here:
When I refer to D9 I refer to Non-MW50. if MW50 D9 is modelled instead of a standard one, then I agree on non perking Spitfire XIV, while I still think that it is a superior plane than 190D9.
-
OK RAM, I understand you better now.
I think you can be sure that the Dora will have MW 50. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Sorry, I dont see how is comparable a 190D9 with a SpitXIV
Comparable isnt pertinent,how can you expect HTC to model the premier LW fighter of WW2 and not its RAF counterpart?
If anything the RAF dweebs should get the SpitXIV before the LW weenies get the D9.
-
Originally posted by jihad:
Comparable isnt pertinent,how can you expect HTC to model the premier LW fighter of WW2 and not its RAF counterpart?
.
Because I dont expect, either, to see the premier LW jet plane of WWII, 1500 built, of which 750 or so saw service.
they saw extensive service, didnt they?.
-
2. The AFDU report only says the turning circle (radius) is identical to the Spit IX. It says nothing about turn rate. The plane is 1000 lb heavier than a Spit IX but with the same wing. I assure you the AH Spit XIV will turn worse than the AH Spit IX.
Hmm.. interesting. An 8,500lb plane with 2050hp at its disposal will somehow have the same turn radius, but slower turn rate than a 7,500lb plane with only 1720hp at its disposal.
How the heck will the extra 300hp/1000lb make the Spit XIV SLOWER around its turn radius than the Spit IX?
Powerloading Spit IX 4.36lb/hp
Powerloading Spit XIV 4.14lb/hp
I'd love to see the answer to this one! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps
-
The reports that say the spit XIV turn as well as spit IX are bull. Simple physics tell you it is a propoganda backed lie. I want the spit XIV in AH, non perked as I want the dora. When both are modelled correctly, it will be a very good, fun, and interesting matchup.
-
Spitfire XIV will turn a faster, wider circle than the Spitfire MkIX, but not by a lot in either case. Pilot reports from WWII support this.
Now, as this subject has been completely hijacked from its original (joke (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) purpose, I suggest that we all let it die.
Doh!!!! I kept it going. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Jekyll, assuming the 14 is going around the same circle at the same speed as the 9, the extra mass is going to require a lot more lift, which causes more induced drag.
For a good view of what 1000 lb and a few hundred hp does to turning performance in AH, look at Me 109G-10 vs. Me 109G-2.
-
HI
A Dora will do 453MPH on MW-50. As for the MkXIV it did begin to suffer from some of the same problems that late 109s encounterd.
It was heavier than the IX and had much more torque due to its great big engine and great big propeller. So it didnt turn as well as a IX. Im not bashing it in any way its a great plane and I love it but those big performance numbers did have an affect on handling. I also recall reading that it was not especially friendly on take-off.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Loaded wingloading
Spit IX : 30.2 lbs/ft^2
Spit VII : 32 lbs/ft^2
Spit XIV : 34.7 lbs/ft^2
Ok in a simple model it's obvious which plane will turn best and which will turn worse.
The real world is not simple simulations are not infallible. Often science is a process of experimenting then reasoning why the results are as they are. (Rutherford didn't expect those alpha particles to bounce back but when they did he found out why instead of saying impossible)
Here are the real world observed results :-
"Spitfire XIV is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire VIII in turns at all heights"
how can this be interpreted other than a XIV (34.7 lbs/ft^2) outurns a VII (32 lbs/ft^2).
"The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire Mk XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord."
Slightly more ambiguous but still it's not what wingloadings would suggest.
One thing to note is the VII while has an improvement in powerloading but not significantly greater weight (7400 v 7700) it turns worse. The XIV however has a large increase of weight (and also powerloading) but as well there is a change prop with 5 blades so it would seem this is a large factor (also new tail section).
If HTC do model the XIV i doubt it will turn like a 9 due to the fact you probably need some sort complicated fluid modelling (i.e how air flows around the plane)
P.S. there is probably some misconceptions in here so feel free to correct me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P.P.S - isn't giving the D9 MW 50 like giving the 14 150 octane fuel J/K (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) :P
-
Both the 152 and 47M only saw service in the last 2 maybe 3 months of the war in numbers that barely break the teens.
Grunherz, some information for you.
There were 48 production Ta-152's, probably half of which that actuall saw combat. The others were mostly destroyed on the ground in strafing attacks, or were lost in accidents.
There were 150 P-47M's which were operated by the US 56th Fighter Group, and saw extensive combat in the ETO from mid 1944 on.
In addition there were 1,500 P-47N's produced (the model that came after the M, and could perform similarly but cared more total fuel) that saw combat in the PTO. In fact there were as many P-47N's, as there were Fw190D9's and Me109K4's put together.
So while I agree with you on the Ta-152s, I have to disagree with you on the P47M/N.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
HI
No No No The 56th first got them deliverd in January 1945, not in mid 44.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Verm, Osprey's "P-47 Aces of the 8th AF" lists the intro date for 56th FG -47M's as Jan 45. But it took several weeks to discover that the planes hadn't been properly weather-proofed and they suffered reliability problems. This caused the 56th to fly mixed missions (-47D's and -47M's) until early Mar when they went completely to -47M's.
As for the P-47N, the first P-47N's arrived on Okinawa in Mar 45 with the 318th FG. Later the 413th and 507th FG's arrived in the Pacific by Jun 45. The 318th itself scored 48 kills in the last week of May in P-47N's to the loss of just 3 planes. From what I have read, P-47N's produced at least 10 aces and scored over 150 kills between the FG's that flew it.
------------------
Lt Col Dune
X.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
My point was that the P47M/N (The N model was basically M with added wing tanks and a slightly different turbosupercharger)does not fit into the category of "only saw service in the last 2 maybe 3 months of the war in numbers that barely break the teens".
Total time of service in combat, and total numbers of aircraft produced, are very comparable or exceed some of the aircraft we currently have in the game, or some of the aircraft that are screamed for repeatedly. For instance the Spit XIV, the 190D9, and the Me109K4.
All that is different, is the mindset.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Hi
Actally the N also had a whole new wing with a 1 foot extension in the wingroots and squared off wingtips, a new extension infront of the fin/rudder and some other changes I cant quite remember right now.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
*sigh* fine, forget about the M totally
Does it change my point above about the comparison between the others (190D9, Spit XIV, and 109k4)?
No.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
It fundamentally changes the point. In just the same way changing the paintwork on a car fundamentally changes its driving characteristics.
I really expected more of you Verm.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
The problem is people look at planes as how they compare to the current planeset and as such the only true '44 throughbreds are the 51 and G10 that is why when you mention planes such as the 47N or spit 14 you get - it's too good but the arena wouldn't be unbalanced if there was Ki 84's, Tempest V's, 47 N's , 51D , G10's, Spit 14's, 190 D9's, Yak 3's and, La 7's.
-
In just the same way changing the paintwork on a car fundamentally changes its driving characteristics.
Hey I have factory test data that says black cars are 0.00238 mph faster than the standard fire engine red.
Now fire engine red with an extra coat of wax.... BUT they didn't use extra wax until after the war (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Black cars are clearly overmodelled (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
eveyboddie noes red uns go fasta (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Ram:
You mentioned some time ago that the ME262 was "numerous"... that depends... there were about 1500 that sat on the ground... but only about 300 that ever flew in combat.
Dat ain't too numerous if ya ask me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Originally posted by SnakeEyes:
Ram:
You mentioned some time ago that the ME262 was "numerous"... that depends... there were about 1500 that sat on the ground... but only about 300 that ever flew in combat.
Dat ain't too numerous if ya ask me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Where did you find that number?...I have read several times that the number of 262s that saw combat was near 700.
Anyway how many F4U1Cs saw combat? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-26-2000).]
-
Originally posted by RAM:
Where did you find that number?...I have read several times that the number of 262s that saw combat was near 700.
Anyway how many F4U1Cs saw combat? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-26-2000).]
Ah life will be great once the 262's get here...
I can hear it know...all the whining from the poor luftwobbles when they get blasted.
If you wanna fly a flying gas tank, with fire warning lights buzzin all over the cockpit I guess dats your business (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Just think...one hit from a Buff .50 and fwooom (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) before the poor 262 gets into range (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/previews/aug00/b17_01.jpg)
- Jig
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 08-26-2000).]
-
Altogether between 1400 and 1500 Me262's were built, or in some form of construction at the close of the war. Out of this number, only about 300 saw active service. The remainder were grounded due to either fuel shortages, conversion to bomber status at Hitler's command, spare parts, or more importantly-trained pilots.
From http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/history/history2.htm (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/history/history2.htm)
To examine the background of this website (as they do not provide any online references/footnoting) see this page: http://www.stormbirds.com/common/cadre.htm (http://www.stormbirds.com/common/cadre.htm) ... as a result, my feeling is that this information is accurate.
With regard to the F4U-1C, that isn't germaine to this conversation. I'm merely countering the contention that the 262 was widely used (in particular, your statement that "...then the Me262 should be in the regular planeset, because it was very numerous..."
That's the _only_ thing I was commenting on (the number of 262s that saw combat)... no more and no less.
PS - I know that you're not really making the argument that the 262 should be a regular aircraft because it was "numerous and in use"... I'm just pointing out that it wasn't all that numerous from an operational combat sortie standpoint.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 08-27-2000).]
-
Nice info, SnakeEyes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Thanks.
The F4U1-C thing was of course tongue-in-cheek (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Jigster...lol. Give us a Me262 with R4M rockets and then we will see who is in standoff distance, the B17 or the 262 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by RAM:
Nice info, SnakeEyes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Thanks.
The F4U1-C thing was of course tongue-in-cheek (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Jigster...lol. Give us a Me262 with R4M rockets and then we will see who is in standoff distance, the B17 or the 262 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Yo dude that 262 DID have R4M rockets, thats why he's missing a wing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
- Jig