Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Pongo on June 26, 2001, 10:11:00 PM
-
I seem to remember it is the one with a merlin 65..
That is strange looking at the rest of the plane set. Surly the Merlin 66 or 70 would be more appropriate for a spit with 50 cals on it flying in mid to late 44... Was there ever any such beasty as a spit IX with merlin 65 and 50 cals?
While I dont think that a better engined Spit IX would have the effect that some think in the arena it would certainly be a nice addition especialy with a bubble canopy...
Put it at the top of the list please....
-
A significantly faster and significantly better climbing at mid-low alt alt spit would surely have no effect on AH................ :)
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/001267.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/001267.html)
-
PS Pongo you are thinking of the Merlin 66/266 in the LF Mk. IX/XVI. I'd like to see this standard version as well as a perked version with 130/150 fuel allowing +25 boost and 2000 hp. Test data for both flavors: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html)
-
The performance figures for the AH Spit IX match the Spit F IX, the very first model with the Merlin 61. It had a max boost of 15lb, the Merlin 66 used in the Spit LF IX used boost up to 18lb
Climb to 10k in the F IX took 2.7mins to 10k, 5.6mins to 20k. The LF IX took 2.15 to 10k, 4.75 to 20k.
Max speed of the F IX was 326mph at 4000ft, 363mph at 12,000ft, 378mph at 20,000ft. For the LF IX the figures were 354 at 4000ft, 383 at 12,000ft, 397 at 20,000ft.
There were approx 300 F IXs made, all in 42 and early 43. None had the E armament of 50 cals. Approx 4000 LFs were made from early 43 to 45, along with around 1000 HF IXs.
Rather than a SPit IX on 150 octane, what about the Spit VIII. 362mph at sea level, 400 at 12,000ft, 405 at 20,000ft. Rate pf climb at sea level 5,580 ft/min, at 11,000ft 5,100ft/min.
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
-
Nash, doesn´t the AH spit matches a +18 boost spit in speed, but a +15 boost spit in climb???
niklas
-
According to the speed tests done by xHaMmeRx in the "perk the La7" thread in the general discussions forum, the AH Spit IX matches the 15lb boost F IX almost exactly. At 2 differnt alts it is 5mph too fast, but xHaMmeRx is using less than full fuel. It is nowhere near the speed of an LF IX
-
I concur with Nashwan in regards to the AH Spit IX.
In the deck speed tests that I ran only the A6M5b, Spitfire MkVb, Seafire MkIIc, C.202 and maybe the C.205 were slower at sea level. I found the AH Spitfire MkIX to have a top sea level speed of about 320mph. This is consistant with the Spitfire F.MkIX.
However, given the usage numbers of the Spitfire F.MkIX, and the fact that the Mosquito FB.VI Series 2 that I want can out run it, but not out run a Spitfire LF.MkIX or Spitfire MkVIII, I do not want to see a faster Merlin Spit. :D
Add in the Spitfire F.MkXIVc as a perk plane to get a beter Spit.
-
Well lets have a perk spit xivE!(perk 70) and a bubble spit VIII.. non perk 10
It is a little silly haveing such an early spit ix though.
-
What is absurd is that even Italy has a fighter that is later than the best Spit in AH.
Why the Spits all have to be the worst models is beyond me.
(Edited to remove contentious remark (I'm a wimp))
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
-
Nashwan,
That's rather a bit too strong, don't you think?
The Spitfire F.MkIX is the 2nd most used aircraft in AH. The next in line is far behind it.
The reason that I think we don't have a better Spit is because it would dominate the game.
Lets face it, the Spitfire is just too good. Is it our fault that the Germans, Russians, Americans, Japanese and Italians couldn't build a competitive fighter? ;)
-
Karnak, SpitIX dominates THIS arena because it is "too good" for THIS arena. Factors like rewarding the kills per time, hit percentage or kills per sortie are all in the side of Spit-like planes. Add the fact that it is a really easy to fly plane and the result is the most or second most popular plane in the arena.
Now lets imagine different settings:
- no enemy icons.
- Only K/D and type of target destroyed are rewarded.
- The real need to deffend or attack/disrupt friendly/enemy bomber/jabo formations.
What will we have? Spit as a second line plane and Tempest/P51D/190D9/Ta152/Yak9U/109G10 as arena kings.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Lets face it, the Spitfire is just too good. Is it our fault that the Germans, Russians, Americans, Japanese and Italians couldn't build a competitive fighter? ;)
Americans had one and it was whined into perkdom.
-
MANDOBLE,
Yes, I know. That's why I put the " ;)" face at the end of the statement.
Sling322,
Is the F4U-1C a 1942 aircraft? No, I didn't think so.
If the Spitfire contempary of the F4U-1C, The Spitfire MkXIV, were a freebie in AH at the same time as the F4U-1C was a freebie nobody would have been whining about the F4U-1C because all you would have seen is Spitfire MkXIVs. It would have eaten the F4U-1C for lunch.
Because of the short range combat in AH the Spit gets a huge boost to its capabilities.
-
Americans had one and it was dweebed into perkdom.
-
The real 1944 Americans prefered the F4U1D to the F4U1C.....
-
The real 1943 British prefered the Spit IX LF to the F.
Going through a list of Spit IXs produced, I can't find any that remained in squadron service after the summer of 43. All were either lost on operations, or relegated to various test and training establishments. A few recieved Merlin 63s, with more power, and continued to serve.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
Now lets imagine different settings:
- no enemy icons.
Please visit the Gameplay thread and see if you can answer the two questions in the "Visual Realism" thread.
Thanks!
-
That's only part of the icon matter - the 200ft tall "HERE I AM" red neon signage is the other part... ;)
-
I don't know why all this talk on Spit IX..I find the Spit V a better killing machine..The most underated plane in AH.. :D
-
Toad, I dont want a "no icons" arena. I was talking only about how the icons and other factors can change the "popularity" of a plane like the Spit.
With our actual icon system, there is no chance to set up "surprise" attacks. Surprise is just one, if not the most important, part of B&Z attacks. Planes like P51 or D9 cant use its extra speed to run-hit-run because they'll be always noticed by the enemy and any highly maneouverable plane, like the Spit, will negate quickly an easy firing solution.
Our actual Spit IX F is a perfect machine for our actual environment. And people are asking for LF version. why? Just because it will be an even most efficient lo-loevel furbaling fighter.
Do we have hi alt buff masses to intercept? no. Do we have very fast med alt jabo formations to intercept? no. Do we have hi alt buff masses to protect? no. Do we have hi-alt vital targets like reconaisanse aircraft? no.
What we have is an up-to-10k constant furballs over bases. And this is where Spit IX LH could shine the most.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for HTC to post SpitIX performance charts to confirm whether our spit is the F or not.
-
Karnak wrote:
Is the F4U-1C a 1942 aircraft? No, I didn't think so.
Ohhhh boy..... did you just open up a huge can of worms ;)
Remember my constant point that the Spit IX in AH is a 1944 aircraft because it has .50 cals? And you guys keep saying that NO its a 1942 plane, but that it just has the 1944 gunset?
Well, the same could be said of the F4U-1C.
The F4U-1C is essentially, a slightly modified F4U-1A. Where they replaced the x6 .50s with the x4 20mm cannons. Otherwise, its almost exactly the same.
So if the AH Spit is a 1942 plane, then by your arguements, the F4U-1C is also a 1942 aircraft. :)
So which way you wanna have it? :D
-
The AH Spit IX is an F model, not the LF.
I have done climb tests in it in the past, and they gave the right figures for an F, not the LF.
xHamMerx and Karnak have both done speed tests, and they show it is an F, not the LF.
Considering all your points about icons etc, I take it you would support unperking the Tempest?
-
Vermillion, the F4U-1C was a real aircraft, that entered service in 1945.
The Spitfire F IXE is not a real aircraft, almost certainly no such plane existed, apart possibly from prototypes.
The US Navy rated 1 Hispano as equivalent to 3 50 cals, and I don't think many people would argue that they are less effective than 3 50cals in AH.
So your real plane, which first entered service in 45, has twice the firepower of the earlier F4U-1.
Our mythical plane has about 14% more firepower than the real Spit IX F.
Anyway, isn't the F4U-1C in AH based on the F4U-1D? Which is a 1944 plane.
-
There's a debate as too whether it was based upon the -1A or the -1D depending on which source you use, but if I remember right, the navy documents that F4UDOA presented here on the -1C showed it was based upone the -1A.
Really the only difference in the -1D and the -1A even, was the addition of ordinance pylons on the wings, and a change to the fuel tanks/system.
The entire F4U-1 line is very very similar.
-
Verm, you've seen for yourself from the performance figures this is a basic 1942 Spitfire. It has the wrong armament option, but 2 50cals in place of 4 303s, when you already have 2 Hispanos mounted is hardly significant, especially as the E armament adds weight. (Does AH model the added weight?)
Whichever way you look at it, the Spit was one of the great planes of WW2, one of the few that was in from the begining to the end. In AH it is in from the begining to 42, and that is a travesty.
Imagine the wailing and whining if the 109f4 and 109g2 were modelled, and no others, or cast your mind back to when the 190a5 and a8 were the only 190s (and the a5 was the best of the a series)
Verm, my very first post on this board was
Please don't flame me as it's my first post and I'm just looking trying to find an online sim I can join.
As I understand it the only RAF aircraft in Aces High is the SpitIX. Why are other British aircraft like the SpitXIV and Tempest from early 44 only considered for inclusion along with late/post war planes like the TA152 and P51H?
(it was an uberplane discussion)
your response was
Nashwan currently there is no Ta-152H or P-51H in the game, and I don't expect to see them anytime soon. There is the Fw190A8 (1944) and the P-51D (1944).
The Spitfire Mk IX in the game is a 1944 model F.
It has just been announced officially, that the very next new plane after this coming version will be the Typhoon Ib.
Realistically, I would also expect to see the Spit XIV and the Tempest, at least someday.
So I don't think the British Pilots are getting the short end of the stick.
Hell if you want to see it bad, just look at the Russian (VVS) aircraft in the game. Their most advanced model is the La-5, which is a midwar 1943 aircraft. They deserve a La-7, or a Yak-3, or a Yak-9U.
At least the Spit IX is competitive in the arena.
What's changed since then (Feb 2000).
The Spit IX has been proved to be a 1942 model. Of the 3 planes you say the Russians deserve they've got 2. The Tempest is in, as the most expensive perk.
It's been a year and a half since then, and the RAF planeset hasn't moved with the others. Every non perk British fighter has a K/D of less than 1/1 against other fighters.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
Considering all your points about icons etc, I take it you would support unperking the Tempest?
In out actual arena (furball-oriented, long range enemy icons), Tempest should keep perked (IMO, also SpitIX, La7 and Yak9U) and Ta152 unperked.
In a mission oriented arena, with no icons, mass hi buff formations, etc. Tempest should keep perked, as Ta152, P51 and 190D9. Perhaps, even 109G10. Everything else, unperked.
I know this is not a thread related to perk or unperk Tempest or anything else.
But, IMO, perking or unperking should be related to the type of arena we have. For example, in a ground combat oriented arena (lots of tanks, flaks, etc) the perked ones should be the hvy jabos (F4U, Typh, P51, P38 and P47). In a hi buff oriented arena, the perked ones would be the interceptors (109G10, D9, P51, P38, Ta, Tempest). In a furball related arena (our actual arena), the perked ones would be the pure dogfighters. And so on.
-
You guys are fogging the issue for no reason.
A real 1944 spit ix lf(or spit xvi) with a merlin 66 and a bubble canopy and clipped wings would be a great addition to the high cost non perk stable of AH.
As would a 4 hispano Spit Vc.
There is no reason at all not to include these aircraft. They where common variants of one of the most signifigant and recognised Aircraft of the war.
They will not unballance anything except to make the current spit ix more rare. That is fine with me deligate it to Dieppe scenarios where it belongs.
This has nothing to do with the chog the la7 the ta152 or the space shuttle. It has to do with a reasonable request for a relelvent version of a non uber but very competitive plane to be added to the game.
-
2 comments.
1) Pongo's last post makes a lot of sense.
and in answer to the question what spit IX do we have?
2) All of them -- every single one ever manufactured. I know this cause I saw them in one place last night.
Hooligan
-
Why not a clipped wing Spitfire V with that low altitude Merlin 50M (18lbs boost). Lighter than the IX and less drag (smaller radiators). Who cares what happens above 10000ft :D
Gripen
-
Spitfire LF.Vb would be nice. :)
BTW, the Spitfire F.IX performance is incorrect in AH.
Speed at +16lbs matches the real F.IX(Merlin 61) at +15lbs. That's OK.
Speed at +18lbs in uncomparable to the real one, because I have never seen anything regarding the Merlin 61 and +18lbs boost!
For comparison, in AH the F.IX +18lbs speed is 10-15mph slower than the real HF.IX(Merlin 70, +18lbs) below 19k, and equal to it between 21k and 27k.
Climbrate at +18lbs matches the real F.IX at +15lbs. :mad:
Suggestion: Remove the extra +18lbs speed, German 300l droptank, rockets and "E wing" options from the Spitfire F.IX, and add one(or more ;)) of Spitfire LF.IX/VIII/XVI. :)
And a FR.XIVe! :D
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: juzz ]
-
Juzz, forget the 18lb boost gauge, the AH Spit performs almost exactly like the standard F IX on 15lb boost.
Climb figures are almost identical, I tested and posted the results once, but can't get the search function to work now.
xHamMerx has done some speed tests;
Alt AH F IX
1k 321 320 (Ihave seen 320 quoted at s/l)
5k 340 338 (at 6k)
10k 361 356.5
15k 380 380
20k 380 380
25k 401 391.5
30k 399 402
As you can see the figures are pretty good matches, apart from at 25k.
-
I would say the gauge is wrong, but consider this...
1. At +16lbs the AH Spitfire F.IX almost perfectly matches the (+15lbs) speed data of AB505 at all altitudes, and is also very close to the BF274 data.
2. At +18lbs the AH Spitfire F.IX is faster than both planes at most altitudes by about 5mph. Regarding the speed data listed above:
A. Generate a graph and extrapolate the s/l speed - BF274 does NOT do 320mph at s/l.
B. BF274 does (at best) 334mph at 5k.
So it is obvious that the Spitfire F.IX in AH is supposed to represent +18lbs for level speed, but this extra performance is NOT represented in the climbrate where +18lbs in AH matches BF274 at +15lbs.
Can ya dig it? :cool:
-
Plus we also have the AH exclusive never before modeled Spitfire Mk-P47D11! :)
I love that damn plane, its a freaking spit. :)
-
Well, if you look at the performance of an LF and HF Spit, both on 18lb boost, you see a different picture.
The LF was tuned for low down performance, the HF for high, so a standard F running 18kb boost would come somewhere between the 2, or at least close.
Alt AH LF HF F
1k 321 336 329
5k 340 358 350 338
10k 361 380 371 356
15k 380 383 393 380
20k 380 398 392 380
25k 401 405 405 391.5
30k 399 395 412 402.5
The Ah fits the 15lb boost F IX quite well. At 5K it is 2 mph too fast, but about 12mph too slow to be running 18lb boost. At 10K it is 5mph too fast for a F IX, but 15mph too slow to be 18lb boost. At 15 and 20K it is exactly right for a 15lb F IX, at 25K it is close to 18lb boost, at 30k it is too slow for even a 15lb F IX.
In shhort, below 20K it is 0-5mph faster than an F IX, 3-20mph slower than an LF (15-20 at most alts), and 8-13mph slower than an HF.
As a side note, because the AH Spit doesn't have a mirror, and the tested planes did, the AH Spit is actually a bit slow at most alts, even compared to a standard F IX.
-
I followed the link that funked up posted here. I read it, and it took me back to memories of warbirds in '98 and '99. The spit IX in warbirds had it all over the 109's at that time. Onlt a 109K stood a chance against it, and it was a VERY popular plane. If you flew the spit much in warbirds, you were known as a "spit dweeb".
Well, ever since I've been flying Aces High (since the get-go) the spitfire guys have really had a sub-par spit compared to the rest of the planeset. The spit IX here is just too slow to give us luftweiners a run for their money, unless of course, you're like me and turn fight spitfires in your 109G10. I don't do it because I'm suckered into it, but because its just waaay fun when you can get angles on a better turner.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say here is I think the tea sippers have been punished enough for their dweebiness over in WB's. Throw these boys better spitfire pyro. And please make it a spitXIV. I yearn to see channel 1 lit up with "spitdweeb" like back in the glory days of warbirds.
:p
-
Nashwan!
The AH Spitfire F.IX speeds at +16lbs are within 1% of the AB505 data at all altitudes. Ie; if you plotted them both on a graph like the ones on the help page, you would only see one line...
BF274 at +15lbs is identical to AH +16lbs below 15.4k, above that it is slightly different, but by far closer to AH +16lbs than the AH +18lbs speeds.
So it is quite clear that the AH Spitfire F.IX speed at +16lbs is intended to match the real Spitfire F.IX at +15lbs.
PS: If you want to nitpick - the AH Spitfire has the later tropical filter(like a VIII), which would negate the speed gained from the missing mirror anyway. :p
-
No, BF274 is not identical at 15lbs to the AH Spit at 16lbs
Here is the table again, with AH Spit at 16lb 9ie without WEP). All AH speed tests by xHamMerx
Alt AH , LF, ,HF, ,F, ,AH 16lb
1k 321 . 336 329. . . . .318
5k 340 . 358 350 338 . . 333
10k 361, 380 371 356 . . 355
15k 380, 383 393 380 . . 375
20k 380, 398 392 380 . . 378
25k 401, 405 405 391.5 . 395
30k 399, 395 412 402.5 . 399
At 16lbs the AH Spit is slower than the 15lb real Spit at all altitudes up to 25k, where the AH model seems to have some real problems.
At 5k the AH Spit at 18lb is closer to reality. At 10K 16lb is closer to reality, at 15k 18lb matches exactly, 16lb is too slow, at 20k the same is true.
Add up the difference between 5k and 20k and average them. At 18lb the AH Spit is on average just under 2mph too fast, at 16lb is is just over 3mph too slow.
As you say, climb rate also matches at 18lb, and is well off at 16lb.
-
Juzz, are you sure it has a tropical filter? It certainly doesn't look like it to me, and would be a bizzare choice, as very few IXs had the tropical filter. Still, it would fit with the way HTC chooses to model Spits, as the worst variants. I am suprised we didn't get the IX with floats instead ;)
It's not actually a nitpick about the mirrors. Mirrors were fitted to give a view to the rear, their drag was accepted in light of the improved view.
AH doesn't model the mirror, doesn't model the rear view, so why should it model the drag?
-
The tropical filter on a Spit IX or Spit VIII was much harder to spot then the volks filter on a spit V. I dont think I had any effect on the performance of the AC. I may be wrong I dont have my reference here.
-
At 16lbs the AH Spit is slower than the 15lb real Spit at all altitudes up to 25k, where the AH model seems to have some real problems.
The data given for AH +16lbs is actually faster than AB505 below 12k. It is also faster than BF274 would be below 4k.
At 5k the AH Spit at 18lb is closer to reality.
Nope. You forget that 338mph is for 6k - at 5k the BF274 figure is more like 333.5mph(AB505, 330mph). So I think, 333mph is closer.
At 10K 16lb is closer to reality, at 15k 18lb matches exactly, 16lb is too slow, at 20k the same is true.
At 20k; AH +16lbs matches AB505 data, while AH +18lbs matches BF274 data.
At 25k, AH +16lbs matches the AB505 data exactly. BF274 was about 4mph slower than AB505 above 22k, for some reason.
Add up the difference between 5k and 20k and average them. At 18lb the AH Spit is on average just under 2mph too fast, at 16lb is is just over 3mph too slow.
It's easy to see if you plot a graph. Then it is clear that AH +16lbs ~= RL™ +15lbs.
-
Juzz, refresh my memory. What happens if you plot the BF274 speeds without the error corrections? Don't they match the AH data better?
(By AH data I mean Pyro's charts)
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Huh? I'm only using the TAS data - error corrections are for IAS, right?
-
no guages are known to be inacccurate, they figure out the inaccuracies and make a correction chart. not the same thing.
-
I think in the BF274 tables they took the ASI readings and added the PEC (position error correction) and Comp. (compressibility correction) values to get an adjusted ASI which was then adjusted for density to give TAS.
If you skip the PEC and Comp. adjustments and go straight to the density adjustment, you get 421 mph at 27400 feet. I'm not sure if that means anything, too sleepy right now. :)
(I'm talking about chart for level speeds, combat rating, no fuel tank in this document: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html) )
[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
PS Let's all remember that one set of test data does not determine reality. There is a lot of variation in test data. A few mph variation here or there doesn't mean a model is invalid. For instance compare the BF274 figures to the AB505 figures which are here: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html)
Aircraft is the same spec but the results are different. This is typical for all the WWII aircraft for which I have seen multiple sets of flight test data. If I ever see two that agree exactly, I'll have a heart attack.
[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
I made up some charts for the spit IX's climb and speed. Here is the link http://rwy0.tripod.com/ahfilms/spitix.html (http://rwy0.tripod.com/ahfilms/spitix.html) .
You can also reach this page from my home page. http://home.midsouth.rr.com/rwysairwar/ (http://home.midsouth.rr.com/rwysairwar/)
RWY
-
If you skip the PEC and Comp. adjustments and go straight to the density adjustment, you get 421 mph at 27400 feet. I'm not sure if that means anything, too sleepy right now.
I don't see any point in doing that? Obviously by skipping the corrections, the TAS produced will be false. 421mph@27.4k is about 10mph faster than the AH Spitfire F.IX(@+18lbs) anyway.
PS Let's all remember that one set of test data does not determine reality....
Uhm, didn't you notice that I have been using both AB505 and BF274 in my comparisons? I have no other data available unfortunately.
-
To be honest I didn't read the whole thread and I used first person plural (let's i.e. let us) so I wasn't pointing fingers with the comment about data sets.
It's interesting that if somebody finds a 10 mph variation between a set of flight test data and the game, there's a witch hunt on these forums. But 10 mph out of 400 mph is only 2.5% error. Most engineers would be overjoyed if their mathematical models could achieve that kind of accuracy when trying to match a 50-year old test of a system for which they have very limited and conflicting sources of data. :)
About PEC and Comp.:
Back a few versions ago there were claims of 420 mph in the Spit IX and some statements from Pyro that instrument error was modeled in the game. I haven't had a chance to do any testing (haven't played AH for at least a month) so I have no idea what the current performance is like. But if anybody is getting a 420 mph reading then it could be explained by the historical instrument error in BF274.
[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
http://www.geocities.com/qwejibo2000/spit9spd.gif (http://www.geocities.com/qwejibo2000/spit9spd.gif)
See? AH @ +16lbs = AB505 @ +15lbs. BF274 is also equal below 15k but a bit slower in FS gear, with a lower FTH in both gears.
http://www.geocities.com/qwejibo2000/spit9clm.gif (http://www.geocities.com/qwejibo2000/spit9clm.gif)
?! AH Spitfire F.IX requires +18lbs to match BF274 at +15lbs.
PS: if you can't get the pics, blame geocities, not me! ;)
[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: juzz ]
-
Juzz, I can't get to the charts but I'll take your word for it. The AH Spit may be designed to match a real F IX at 16lb voost, but at 18lb it is barely faster, and often matches the correct speed of an F IX. If Funked is right and errors are modelled in the guages, then even 18lb boostwould be too slow.
Regardless, 18lb boost is too slow to be a real Spit IX on 18lb boost.
I just did some more climb tests. Max internal fuel, clean, 20mm and 303s, wep, time measured from rotate.
Alt AH F IX
2k 44 30
5K 1.33 1.24
10k 2.55 2.42
15k 4.18 4.00
18k 5.15 5.0
20k 6.01 5.36
23k 7.09 6.36
28k 9.23 8.24
30k 10.28 9.12
33k 12.39 10.42
The time to 2k is very different, probably because of the way I took off. Between 2k and k the AH Spit climbs too well, but from then on it is way behind even the F IX, the first and worst of all Spit IX variants.
-
Just to show what a 1943 Spit would be like, AH Spit v Spit IX LF
Alt AH LF IX
2k 0.44 0.27
4k 1.17 0.51
6k 1.49 1.18
7k 2.06 1.30
8k 2.23 1.42
10k 2.55 2.09
12k 3.28 2.39
14k 4.00 3.09
16k 4.36 3.42
18k 5.15 4.12
20k 6.01 4.45
22k 6.48 5.21
24k 7.35 5.57
26k 8.26 6.42
28k 9.23 7.30
30k 10.28 8.24
32k 11.50 9.24
34k 13.33 10.36
All times mins.secs
-
TRANSLATE PLEASE:
Se pierden en datos, si mas o menos libras de empuje, si se necesita esta u otra version de este o de otro avion, pero no se dan cuenta de los siguiente (a mi modo de ver, y no quiero ofender a nadie):
Nadie en la 2ªWW podia estar tanto tiempo volando en blackout como los pilotos de Spitfire o N1K-J2 sin perder el conocimiento, el control del avión o la fuerza corporal para manejarlo sin problemas, por lo que se, un blackout podia ser mortal en combate, esos giros tan cerrados se hacian a baja velocidad y sin llegar a 6 G's, en AH se usa a menudoy no pasa nada, modelen el cansancio fisico.
Se piden aviones que participaron en muy escaso numero (o no lo hicieron) para la arena (P-51H, Ta152 H1, Fiat G56, etc), y sin embargo se reusan los que si lo hicieron (ME 262, MIG 1/3, BF 109 E4/7, Spitfire I/II, P40 B/E, y otros muchos).
Piden que el Spitfire tenga este u otro motor, use este nivel de octanaje en el fuel o este otro, pero realmente creen que todos los Spitfires usaron fuel de 150 de octanaje? Seamos serios, solo en pruebas, al igual que otros aviones. Si queremos un Spitfire para baja cota, media o alta que se modelen por separado y con sus cualidades y defectos, y que cada uno use el modelo segun su forma de volar, pero que no se haga una media de sus caracteriticas.
Les puedo asegurar que cada uno tiene datos de rendimientos distintos para cada avion, en unos pone una cosa, y en otros otra, yo mismo, tengo uno donde dice BF109 G2 velocidad max 623 Km/h y otro que pone 650 Km/h (datos de la fuerza aerea finlandesa) a que no atenemos?.
Modelar este juego a gusto de todos es imposible, pero tambien es cierto que si bien se deben seguir los datos mas fiable tambien lo es que hay aviones por debajo de sus posibilidades reales y otros por encima (ejemplo: ni el Spitfire ni el N1K,a mi modo de ver, pierden la suficiente E y la recuperan demasiado deprisa para el tipo de virajes que hacen)
Los iconos son un factor fundamental en este tipo de arena, deberian ser suprimidos para distancias inferiores a 700y o bien crear una arana historica.
Es anacronica la arena de AH, RPS es muy necesario.
Un saludo
Supongo
;)
-
ERROR sorry
BF 109 G2 NO, Datos del 109 G6
Saludos
Supongo :D