Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: funked on May 26, 2000, 01:45:00 AM
-
I would ask for the Tempest and the Spitfire Mk. XIV, to give the RAF a 1944-45 aircraft matching the other countries.
I would ask that the Spitfire Mk. IX be given clipped wings, 150 octane fuel, increased boost, 4 cannons, a conformal drop tank, and a bubble canopy.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
yes yes !!!!!!!!!!!
-
oohhh.. Would you also like a nifty buck rogers ray gun to go with that Funked ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
hehehe just sitting trying to think of any other "goodie" that existed in the war that you didn't ask for on that aircraft. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) JATO bottles perhaps? The La-7R had them.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Make it a Seafire, they had RATO units.
Other options from the Supermarine catalogue:
Spitfire airbrakes, good for -6g accelerations!
Periscopic gunsight - so you can shoot under the nose.
All-seeing rear vision mirror.
6 Hispano cannon.
Rear fuselage fuel tanks.
Contra-rotating props to cancel "torque" effects.
Griffon engine with "GEM" modifications.
And a beer keg under each wing.
PS: All items in list are real.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
Certainly lets get a late Spit Ix or Spit XVI.
I would even say the 4 HS load out should be there.(if the negatives that kept it off of line machines can be modeled as well.)
-
The day we get the MkXVI instead of the MkXIV is the day I cancel my account. Sorry, but giving us the MkXVI would just be giving us a plecebo. "See, its got a late mark number, so its got to be equivilent of a late war plane, go get slaughtered in your new MkIIIV, er, XVI". The MkXVI is a MkIIIV with an Packard built Merlin engine. Its performance is not better than the MkIX in any way. If they aren't going to give us a late war Spitfire, fine. But don't insult my knowledge by giving me a plecebo with a high Mk number.
Sisu
-
Mk IIIV?? Lets see, 5-3=2... Wait! That's a Mk II then? Damn! They really are devious bastards!
Here Karnak, how about a nice Mk XIX ok? It's really fast...
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
Karnak
breath deep
People have been saying that the Mk IX we have is a mid war one. Fine Lets have that late war one. I said MkXVI not to fool anybody but to give some variety to the plane sets. Plus many of the Canadian Squadrons had XVIs
If you have that big a hang up about which roman numeral you get I hope you do quit
-
Yes, the MkXIX was VERY fast. Of course it doesn't actually have guns or armor, just a camera. But who needs guns and armor?
(I could be mistaken about this, but I'm pretty sure the above info is correct. I'll check my books when I get home)
Pongo, my point is that the MkXVI isn't any variance. It has the appearance of being different, but is in fact the same, thus it is a plecebo. Giving us the MkXVI would be like giving the German players the Bf109K-4, which is exactly the same performance wise as the Bf109G-10 that they have now. The difference between the MkIX and MkXVI, like the difference between the Bf109G-10 and Bf109K-4, is a slight cosmetic difference. I would understand completely if the German flyers got upset if the Bf109K-4 were added. The only difference is that they already have a late war 109. Giving us the MkXVI would be giving us a mid-war plane in late-war clothes. It would allow the German flyers to claim that we have a late war aircraft, when in fact we would not. I don't care about the roman numeral, I care about the performance. As I said, if they don't want to add a late war Spitfire, fine, I'll keep flying the MkIX. Just don't try to pull the wool over my eyes.
Mind you, I'd have no problem with the MkXVI being added at the same time as, or after the MkXIV. It just isn't really any different than a MkIX.
Sisu
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
It's not the Roman numeral, Pongo, it's the fact that the XVI is really a IX with minor mods. If it had 150 octane it would help make the plane a bit more competitive, but it's no substitute for a real 1944 British plane. You know, the sort of thing the Americans, Germans, Russians and Japanese have got. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Geez guys take it easy, I just started this thread to have a little fun with Pongo. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Well the other Spit whiners have allways maintained that the spit IX we have is a 1942 version. And that a 1944 version would be quite a bit supperior. Like the difference between a 109g6 and a G10...
You spit whiners should get your stories straight...
I am talking about puting the 2 years worth of refinments into the spit XVI. If all we LW fans had was the porked 1942 G6 we have now we would love to get a G10 or a G6Asm. Evidently the only plane that will make you spit pilots feel appeased is the XIV. I think that is a shame. If we really have a 42 spit IX it would be nice to have the later one.
-
Juzz have you got any more info on some of those
mods - they sound intresting (especially the beerkegs (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
-
Geez, guys, chill.
Karnak, do you really think that Pyro wouldn't know the difference between the XIV and the XVI? I'd give him a little more credit than that.
-
Not meaning to be too aggressive, sorry.
Pongo, I have never maintained that the MkXVI is to the MkIX what the G10 is to the G6 (I've never even mentioned the MkXVI until today). Whoever said that the improvement of the MkXVI over the MkIX was anywhere near the improvement of the G10 over the G6 was very wrong (in fact the improvement would be nearly impossible to notice). The MkXIV is not required to make me happy, but it is the next combat version up from the MkIX. I'll be happy enough if we stick with the MkIX, but quite unhappy if we get the MkXVI as a late war plane, because its not really. It however would allow you Luftwaffe types to claim that we have a late war aircraft. My arguements have always supported the MkXIV as the next Spitfire.
banana, I'm sure that Pyro knows the difference between a MkXIV and a MkXVI, however that doesn't mean that he wouldn't give us a MkXVI based on an apparent desire for that version. If Pyro modeled a MkXVI I'm sure it would behave very much like the historical MkXVI. Same goes for the MkXIV. I'm just trying to kill the "Give us a Spitfire MkXVI" line because of what the Spitfire MkXVI actually was, not because of who suggested it or its Roman numeral.
I'm sorry if people take this as a flame or a whine, its not intended as either. As far as I can tell I'm just posting information to clear up some misconceptions. I'm trying to be as neutral as I can, but hey, at least we're not arguing about Spit vs. 109 or 190, now its Spit vs. Spit.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sisu
-
More chutes to strafe. So be it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
(http://saintaw.tripod.com/hristo.gif)
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
Pongo can you find one of these threads where people have claimed the Spit XVI is as big an improvement as the the 109G10 is?
It's an interesting comparison you make, because the IX and G6 are contemporaries, as are the XIV and G10. Of course we have the G10 already....
-
Guys... lets just give the Spitdw .... errr.. Spitfire Pilots the Mk 22 or 24.
They will then have nothing to complain about and can feel manly and proud as they bounce 'Sturmbock' Fw190A-8s.
Of course, they are still likely to get their tulips handed to them, but at least they won't be able to complain that they don't have a late enough Spitfire version (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Why do so many hate the Spitfire?
It was unquestionably one of the best aircraft from WWII, yet the general feeling I get is that most people wish it had never existed.
Why?
Sisu
-
Jekyll, I recently got a copy of the Fw 190A-8 manual. The climb and speed data almost exactly match the plane in AH. These are data from Focke Wulf for a standard fighter version.
-
*Edited to be less macho*
Jekyll stop ride bashing please. My squadron flies Spitfires primarly, and we have several guys who I am confident could wipe the floor with most Spit-bashers in a same-plane duel. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
It was lame in WB when it was bashing HO 190's, P-38's, and F4U-4's, and it continues to be lame here.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
wow dont get your panties in a not girls.
find it yourself. Look for threads called "what spit do we have anyway?" or stuff like that.
The part about the G6-G10 comparison was mine not anyone elses.I was responding to this..
"The difference between the MkIX and MkXVI, like the difference between the Bf109G-10 and Bf109K-4, is a slight cosmetic difference"
But you are incorrect. The difference between a G6A-s and a g10 would not be all that great.
If you cant be very effective in a Spit Ix in this game you are incompetent. It is the easiest most forgiving and probably the most deadly plane in the game. When I run into a good e fighter in the spit Ix it is nightmare time.
It probably should have been I guess. Personly I love the plane. I have a 30X20 inch Stained glass spit picture on my deck window. I have (quick count) 3 spit V models 1 spit IX model and 2 spit XIV models within arms reach of me. More books about it then Fw books.
But its a candy bellybutton plane in AH. Almost any plane you meet you have several advantages over. And then you throw its guns into the equation.
My point about the Spit XVI is still that if the IX is an early version engine wise. Why not give the late war version first and see if that satisfies the girls. Hey an extra 10mph and you would be able to out run, out climb,out turn out dive everything. That would be good practice for when you get your XIV.
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 05-26-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
Oh that's great Pongo, call the people you are having a discussion with "girls"...
-
Pongo, spend a month flying nothing but a 1942 109g6. See if you still think a 1942 plane is still that effective against late 44 aircraft.
Virtually every other plane a Spit meets has an advantage, it can run away if it's in difficulty. It is far easier to survive in a plane when you can engage or disengage at will. I suppose as a LW fan you enjoy flying a 109G10 against planes that are so much older, but pehaps it would do you good to face a challenge now and then. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
BTW, why is it every RAF thread has to end up as a Luftwaffe debate?
[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
How about we forget this nonsense about Spits. The Spit IX that is in there now can take on anything when flown properly. If we put a late model Spitfire in that can catch P-51Ds and out turn everything but a zero, no one will fly P-51s unless they put in the H model, etc. My guess is they will probably make the Spit XIV, not XVI (I know what you are talking about Nashwan) for one of the uber plane perks. But hey, lets go for the throat! How about Spitefuls and 262s? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Seriously, I think the late model Spit will be added as a `perk' plane. I would like to see a clipped wing Spit IX though (added to the regular line-up), just because it looks so cool!
(http://devildogs.com/vmf111/sdsig2.gif)
[This message has been edited by Sundog (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
Jekyll, I recently got a copy of the Fw 190A-8 manual. The climb and speed data almost exactly match the plane in AH. These are data from Focke Wulf for a standard fighter version.
Was MW50 factory-installed or was it a field modification? And is your data for the MW50 version or not?
As for why people don't like the Spitfire, well, I don't know that you're right there.
It's not the PLANE people don't like. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Personally, I happen to think that the Spitfire, in all its Marks, was perhaps THE greatest air-superiority fighter of WW2.
But I'd still hate to see AH reduced to a one-plane sim, and I really believe that to be the case if the Spit XIV is introduced in the short term.
-
Erm, let me say this at the top this time: I'd be perfectly happy if the Spitfire MkIX was the latest Spitfire they ever put in the game.
Nashwan, I'm going to have to go with Pongo on the having advantages bit. Yes, almost every plane has some advantages over the Spit IX, but it has the same over them.
As far as the MkXVI out climbing the 109G-10, uh, no. Nor would it outrun the P-51, P-38, Bf109G-10, F4U, Yak9 or Fw190A-5. It REALLY is just a MkIX with a Packard Merlin 266 (I was wrong when I said it was a MkIIIV with an American engine). The MkXVI's engine produces the same amount of power as the MkIX's engine. The Brits were into giving new mark numbers just because the engines were built somewhere else. They did that with a Lanc mark as well (same American built Packard Merlin 266s as a matter of fact). Us low quality colonials, you know. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Heh, Jekyll. I can't speak for others, but I definately don't want the Mk22 or Mk24. If the Ta152 gets added, I'll certainly request the MkF.21 though.
Sisu
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 05-26-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
Pongo, spend a month flying nothing but a 1942 109g6. See if you still think a 1942 plane is still that effective against late 44 aircraft.
Virtually every other plane a Spit meets has an advantage, it can run away if it's in difficulty. It is far easier to survive in a plane when you can engage or disengage at will. I suppose as a LW fan you enjoy flying a 109G10 against planes that are so much older, but pehaps it would do you good to face a challenge now and then. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
BTW, why is it every RAF thread has to end up as a Luftwaffe debate?
[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 05-26-2000).]
I fly the 190A8 bub. Its a degraded version of a 1942 plane.
So you are maintaining that the IX is a 42 version now. Was there know real improvment by 45 then?
I was really posting based on the impression I got from this news group severl months ago that there was more that could be done with the mk IX then was implemented in the game.
Thats all. If that is not the case then I appologize for seconding Funkes suggestion. You all probably have better numbers then me to know if there was a diff or not.
And I hope soda doesnt strangle me for slagin his ride...
I think it might be more informative for you too try to fly that uber G10 for a few flights..
And this debate was turned into a LW one by your friend Karnack and yourself. I was only saying I hope that the spit guys can get a late war ride that wont destroy the arena. Look at my first very positive response to Funkeds post.
It seems that people are now focusing on the fact that the XVI has a packard. I know that ,lets make it a spit IX buble canopy-high tail-150 octane whatever then...
-
Pongo, let me say this again and please, Please, PLEASE read this: I'd be completely happy if they just left it at the MkIX.
Got it this time?
Yeesh, I even backed you up on the advantages of the Spit IX vs other planes bit.
Where is the LW mentioned? I'm not having an RAF vs LW debate. I used 109s as a comparison because the service life of the two aircraft are so similar and allow for comparisons to make things clearer. Or so I thought.
The only problem I have with what you've said is that you keep calling the MkXVI a late war plame. Its not. Whatever its pros and cons are, its still a mid war plane.
Sisu
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 05-27-2000).]
-
Spitfire LF Mk IX(Merlin 66) using 150 Octane, +25lbs boost. Top speed: 360mph at 2,000ft. 390mph at 14,000ft. Climb: 20,000ft in 4.5 minutes. 30,000ft in 8.28 minutes.
-
Jekyll, it didn't have MW 50. In fact there is no mention of MW 50 at all in the manual.
The only boost systems mentioned are:
1. A "supplementary petrol injection" system which is referred to in the past tense.
2. A boost override system which is said to have replaced the petrol injection on new planes coming off the assembly line. This allowed 1.56/1.65 ata (low blower/high blower) vs. 1.42/1.42 ata for normal "emergency and takeoff power". If you remember, MW 50 was supposed to allow increased boost by preventing detonation - this boost override device is doing the same thing. Somehow they figured out how to make it possible without using an antidetonant. This gives a significant performance increase below the two critical altitudes of the BMW 801
3. A GM-1 system fitted to some aircraft. This gives a significant performance increase above 8km.
I'm almost done scanning the performance data and I will post it later to day.
-
I know no one wants an uber plane so here is a compromise - not even the LW would argue this shouldn't be included.
==================================================
As mentioned earlier, the Mk XIV was so successful that a sophisticated version, known as the "Super Spitfire", was built. The "tear drop" canopy was used again and with a Griffon engine, a modified fuselage and wing shape, the Spitfire Mk XVIII was introduced. This aircraft was capable of over 470 mph, and production started in March 1945.
====================================================
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
But whats this i hear you all cry - what give the RAF something competitive, ok then how about the spiteful with the griffon 101 it only does 494 mph. Or mabye we should just stick with putting a griffon 83-88 in a spit with one of those contra-rotating props.
-
The Spit IX we have now is a 1942 version. That has been stated by Pyro or Hitech. The differences between a 1942 version and a 1944 one are minor. It is basically the same plane performance wise. 150 octane fuel would make it climb quicker and give it a higher top speed low down.
I would not like to see the Spit XIV introduced. I have said that before, the plane I would really like is the Tempest. Instead we got a 1941 plane, the Typhoon.
I would like to see improvements made to the current Spit IX, such as 150 octane, rear fuselage tank, bubble canopy and 4 cannon option. LW planes have been given most if not all their armament option, Spits haven't.
I would also like to see the HF and LF versions of the IX introduced.
My feeling is, if the best RAF fighter of 1944 has to be kept out for play balance, we should at least get an upgraded 1942 plane.
Just don't kid yourself, or anyone else, that it is a genuine 1944 aircraft, like the ones other countries have.
-
And a good way to do that is introducing the Mk XVI (Mk 16). Its a Spitfire IX airframe fitted with a Merlin 266 engine, thats a Merline 66 (same as in Spitfire LF IX) but manufactured under licence in the US by Packard.
Performance differances between LF IX and XVI was little.
The new mark number was assigned due to the to engines , even if the same performancewise, needed differnt servicing tools and spare parts.
So in the end it would be a 1944 Spitfire that will not make AH what for instance European Air War is online.... a one plane sim.
Spitfire XIV was a great aircraft that had VERY few vices and if it is introduced into the normal planeset it would become the most common ride, that im sure of. And this would take alot of fun out of the game very fast.
And trow in a Tempest V while we're at it. Would be a good addition to the plaset. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Dont like it myself but was a very good aircraft (and a "1944-plane" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
Guys stop calling eachother names and start act like adults instead, not like kids in a sandbox....
Nattulv, a FW190/Bf109F-G/Spitfire lover and driver in the same body .YES its possible!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Nattulv
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
[This message has been edited by LLv34 Nattulv (edited 05-27-2000).]
-
This is not a flame to you Jim, I am just using your quoted text for reference.
Originally posted by jmccaul:
But whats this i hear you all cry - what give the RAF something competitive, ok then how about the spiteful with the griffon 101 it only does 494 mph. Or mabye we should just stick with putting a griffon 83-88 in a spit with one of those contra-rotating props.
IMO the 1942 Spit IX we have in the MA does exceedingly well. Check the stats, it is a very successful addition. I believe HTC made the right choice.
If you get into a late war HA I can see the need for a later Spit. The Spit XIV in the MA might just displace the F4U-1C as KOTH, then "Holly Jeepers, Heavens to Mergatroid!... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
-
Take a close look at the figures... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Spitfire Mk XIV(Griffon 61). Top speed: 363mph at S/L. 388mph at 12,000ft. Climb: 20,000ft in 5.1 minutes. Initial climbrate ~5000fpm.
Spitfire Mk VIII(Merlin 66). 150 Octane/+25lbs boost. Top speed 360mph at S/L. 400mph at 12,000ft. Climb: Initial climbrate ~5500fpm.
Btw: Four cannon was not really an option for the Mk VIII/IX/XVI/XIV. Only for Mk VC, and Mk 21/22. Rumour is that the F Mk IX didn't have the "E" wing(2x20mm, 2x.5in) option either.
Of course there is the other Griffon engined Spitfire, the Mk XII. Squadron service in February 1943. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Mino i think i should have put smilie in that post. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I would though appreciate a quick RAF plane such as the tempest. It's nice to sometimes be able to stick your nose down and run away.
But how about his for an imaginary uber plane :
Spit 5 -
First off we take
A spit Vb with a max speed of 357 mph and
1)Fit multi-ejector exhausts -> adds 7 mph
2)Remove carburetta ice gaurd -> 8 mph
3)fitting rear view mirror with improved fairings -> 3 mph
4)use whip areial instead of mast ariel -> 0.5 mph
5)cut cartridge cases and link ejector chutes flush with wing -> 1 mph
6)polishing and sealing leading edges -> 6 mph
7)wax polish aircraft -> 3 mph
new max speed is 385.5 mph
the next stage would be to add cliped (don't know how many mph that would add)
and then finally :-
==========================================
Some of these engines (merlin 45's) were modified for low-altitude power, since most of the air combat was taking place around 6,000 feet. In these, the supercharger impellers were shortened, and the speed of the constant-speed unit increased. This gave a maximum power height of around 6 000 feet, and increased speed by around 22 mph at this height. If coaxed to higher altitudes, however, the engine suffered badly.
==========================================
I think that would be fairley competitive.
-
"new max speed is 385.5 mph"
Uhm, that's pretty damn close to what the AH Spitfire Mk V does actually.
Clipped wings add about 5-8mph(depends on alt), iirc. And as for that whopping 22mph extra from clipped supercharger impellors...
Spitfire LF Mk VB(Merlin 50M). Top speed: 333mph at 2,000ft. 350mph at 6,000ft. Climb: 18,000ft in 4.8 minutes. Initial climbrate ~4700fpm.
-
4x20mm was an option on any Spit fitted with the C or E wing, i.e. about half the Vs, nearly all the IXs and all the XIVs and XVIs.
It was esy to convert to 4x20mm, much like the field kits the Luftwaffe used. Just take the old guns out and put the 20mm in it's place. It was something they could do in squadron service, not a factory mod.
-
I know what you're saying, but has anyone heard of many IXs actually fitted with the 4 20mm cannons? The XVI's I have seen pics of with the bubble canopy and 4 20mm's. I haven't seen a pic of an operational Spit IX with 4 20mms though. Just curious.
I would also rather see a Hurricane IIC modeled here as the next British Fighter. I know it isnt late war, but the Spit IX currently doesn't have a problem holding its own in the MA. If you want to point your nose down and run, grab a P-51 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://devildogs.com/vmf111/sdsig2.gif)
-
Could the 22 mph be a result of comparing the critical alt(in terms of top speed) of the LF (6000 ft ?) with the speed of the HF at that alt rather than it's critical alt (15K- 20k ?).
The book i got those mods from (osprey spit 5 aces) states the '44 spit LF's would out run 109 G (no number) and match the speed of the FW under 6000.
Quite intresting though that those mods could produce almost 20 mph extra speed - i can see how it must be hard for pyro deciding what numbers he's aiming at. (was aircraft specially preped for test etc.)
-
Ya know, I do hope ya'll get the Spit whatever (hell I'll probably fly it too, since I fly all the planes)
But seriously folks, if you demand so much of an edge is needed to remain with the game,
what ya gonna do when your spit flies under the nose of my Zeke and you find out that the only numbers that count are the number of rounds that hit? You gonna quit because a zeke felled the airplane god? (And don't give me that "you'll never shoot down a whatever spit" crap, I will, so will others)
And now for something completely different:
Pyro, when we gonna get a French aeroplane in here? Jeez, imagine overlooking an entire nation's airforce, disgraceful (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(funning, but I would fly one)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
22mph is the increase in speed at 6,000ft - where the modified engine produces maximum power(normal Merlin 45 peaks at 18-20k). Ie: The LF Mk V does 350mph at 6,000ft. Not far above 6,000ft the "clipped, cropped and clapped" LF Mk V is slower than a normal F Mk V.
-
Why does everyone want the blinking Tempest all the time? Ya bunch of wusses (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Typhoon forever!
------------------
(http://www.jtsystems.demon.co.uk/tempstruff/Duma.gif)
Duma
XO The Red Dragons
http://www.reddragons.de (http://www.reddragons.de)
[This message has been edited by -duma- (edited 05-29-2000).]
-
Sigh,
In every game, its the same thing. AW, WB, AH, and even WWIIonline.
The Spit was a great plane. It did everything well, but its main rivals always did SOMETHING better - be it carry more firepower, climb better, or fly faster.
...and as for spit bashers, oh man, don't get me started. Why do people spit bash??? Well, I think its a way to avoid defeat by saying the enemy had an "unfair" adventage. Most spitbashers don't even know why they hate the spitfire or its pilots.
PS - as for adding a new spit, Mk14 or Mk16 are great choices (happy, no roman numerals!)
------------------
S/L rf-a,
No. 303 (Polish) Sqn
Northolt Wing
(http://www.raf303.org/jacek/RF-AMkV.jpg)
[This message has been edited by rfa (edited 06-10-2000).]
-
You are all very wrong.
What you want is a mark XXII (22) This thing had a counter-rotating prop, had a top speed higher than a P51D could climb better than most other aircraft in the world. The only problem with it was that if you dived too fast then the aircraft boardered on the sound barrier and could rip of the wings as well as killing you... Can you say Human bullet? LOL
Still a nice AC though
-
Originally posted by B-Town:
You are all very wrong.
What you want is a mark XXII (22) This thing had a counter-rotating prop, had a top speed higher than a P51D could climb better than most other aircraft in the world. The only problem with it was that if you dived too fast then the aircraft boardered on the sound barrier and could rip of the wings as well as killing you... Can you say Human bullet? LOL
Still a nice AC though
The Spit XIV will outrun a P51D, and outclimb almost every other aircraft. No need to go for the Mk 22 for that.
The Spit wouldn't rip it's wings off in a dive. In fact it had probably the highest safe dive speed of any WW2 fighter. The only real problem in high speed dives with the Spit is aileron reversal, which isn't nearly as bad as losing your wings (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The contra-props on the Spit 22 would be nice to have though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Anyone know the performance figures for a Spit with the Griffon 85 engine?
-
Spitfires of all marques could lose wings in high speed dives. Think about it. They were exceptionally thin wings - they weren't strong enough to resist twisting when the ailerons were deflected at high speeds.You think they couldn't be ripped off under load?
For example:
Tangmere 31 May 1942. "During an interception flight in very bad weather in the Winchester area the pilot of this Spitfire VB was leader of two aircraft. His aircraft was badly damaged in an engagement but he was able to note that the other Spitfire went into a high speed dive. Ground witnesses saw wreckage coming through clouds consisting of fuselage only, both wings being off. The fuselage caught fire after impact and was almost destroyed. The pilot who returned to base thought that the other pilot lost control.
"The port wing had broken off at the root bolts and the leading edge rivet seam was sheared from one foot outside the cannon to the outer m/g, indicating high torsion due to aileron flutter. Practically all the structure aft of the spars was broken away. The aileron lever rivets were sheared on the starboard wing. On the port wing, part of the lever comprising the two arms was broken off from its attachment flange and pulled through by the cables to rib 12, where it jammed. Both rear cables are thought to have broken first, ie. those holding the ailerons down.
"The starboard tailplane is thought to have broken upwards, shearing the bolts. The tail end had torn away at the rear joint rivets but was intact. It was considered that structural failure was due to excessive normal loading, produced by an uncontrolled pullout at high speed."
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 06-11-2000).]
-
Ok sorry, I should have said the Spit is less likely to rip it's wings off than most fighters. It was very rare in the Spit, yet people seem to consider it common. On the other hand, it was quite a common problem in Mustangs, and nobody ever comments on it.
"The Mustang had been dogged by instances of structural failure, particularly since the marriage to the Merlin. Flight restrictions on dives and other manoeuvres were imposed, but in the course of combat, these sometimes had to be ignored. The puzzling thing about Mustang airframe failure was that it could not be pinpointed to any one area and was sometimes encountered in brand-new aircraft that had not undergone any known flight strain. Engines tore loose from fuselages, wings were shed, and empennages crumpled and while most of these incidents happened during a sharp manoevre it was a fact that other Mustangs would engage in the same manoevre time and again without any sign of failure. Some components were strengthened - notably the fin and undercarriage door locks (which had a nasty habit of breaking open) - but a few cases of airframe failure were regularly reported to the end of hostilities and beyond." - Roger Freeman, "Mustang at War".
"Most serious of all [problems] was structural failure. Occasionally the wings came off Mustangs in a high-speed dive. There were two main causes for this. At very high speeds, the large doors of the ammunition bays began to bulge outwards. This distorted the wing to the stage where stresses imposed were too great, and it parted company with the fuselage. The second cause was a tendency for the undercarriage to extend in flight, causing abnormal loads on the wing." - Mike Spick, "Great Aircraft of WWII"
"'I witnessed this [Mustang wing] loss on two occasions. One wing was lost directly over the airfield at Madna, Italy in the fall of 1944. The airplane and pilot went straight into the ground not far from the control tower. One other loss occurred there during an afternoon 'rat race.' Coincidentally we were discussing this wing loss with Johnny Typer, the civilian representative from NAA at the time. He was adamant that no-one could pull the wings off a P-51. No sooner had he made that remark than I heard behind me the dull thumps of two wings separating. He asked 'What's that?' and I answered that it had happened again. He asked how I knew, to which I replied, 'Once you've heard that sound, you'll never forget it." We watched as the litter and tumbling wings fell slowly to the ground, long after the fuselage and pilot had crashed - an unforgettable sight and feeling." - Lt. William G. Coloney, 52nd FG, quoted in the Spick book mentioned above.
-
Yep, the structure of the Mustang was designed for a much lighter weight than that of the P-51D. The consequence was the above mentioned structural failures and some stability problems as well.
-
Give me a mk 8 a mk 7 or a mk 12. Any of those planes can whip any us german or japanese plane. Spits are constantly under represented in flight sims. Btw seafires or mk 14 or 16 can whip any of them too. You think i like spits (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Cliped wings and 4 cannon for the 5 would be nice too. Why we have 3 109's and 2 spits? Oh one more thing the brits made the best fighter of ww2. Why? They made the spit! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
The spit can allready hand it to any german plane. What is you point...that it always should?
------------------
"Stupids are like flies. they are everywere, but are easy to kill"
RAM
-
Pongo, if Spit9 can woop you when you fly your G10, I'll say you need more time in training arena. Period.
Hristo had already proved what smart flying in G10 can do. Show me anyone who can do the same thing in Spitfire?
mx22
-
Pongo, no matter what game you mention, its always the same thing.
In a novice vs novice fight, the Spit will win most of the time.
In a veteran vs veteran fight, the 109 has the advantage. Thats, of course, when you talk about historical matchups: MkI vs Emil, MkV vs Franz, MkIX vs Gustav.
Smart flying is your best friend when flying 109s. If you fly it smart, you are going to be the king of the air - if you don't, you are hispano cannon fodder.
------------------
-
MX...
Hristo picks his fights pretty carfuly. That brings success no matter the plane. What are you guys talking about.. one on one ladder duel? I am not I am talking about the MA.
Any plane can woop me MX. Any plane can Woop you too. Back to the training arena with you I guess.
I would agree that a good E fighter has a turning spit at a real disadvantage. But the spit is a good e fighter too.
I dont fly the German stuff cause I think its supperior. I like to fly it. The spit is way easier to get kills in in the MA. I fly it enough to firmly believe that.
------------------
CO
Sturm Crows
-
Spit may be easier to kill in, but it's one of the hardest planes to survive in. In anothe thread awhile ago I have already noted: Once I commited myself to attack, there is no return. Spit simply doesn't have enough speed to escape. During my usual arena flying, it's not rare for me to end up being engaged by 3-4 bogeys at once. You in 109 can simply extend when forced in situation like this, while I'm in Spit bound to turn and loose even more E and unless I'm really lucky and can equal odds back sooner or later I will go down. That's why I want SpitXIV.
mx22
-
I say again.
The spit can allready hand it to any german plane. What is you point...that it always should?
I bring this up again only in response to your last post. I see lots of guys landing spitfires mx. So you want a plane that will let you get out of any too aggressive position you get yourself into?
Show you anyone that can do the same thing in a spitfire.. The whole point is that you cant do the same things in a spitfire that you can do in a G10. But you are welcome to fly the g10 is you think it is invulnerable.
You will find that you cant do the same things in a G10 that you can do in a spitfire either.
Dont worry you will get your Mk14. And I will be flying it along with everyone else. I mean the spit ix is a training plane but as you pointed out it can be beat. A bubble top XIV will probably push the scales all the way over. So you will see alot of them.
We will all have fun shooting down spits in spits....
-
I heard pyro mention one evening that the B29 also has a place in AH, would this not create the same imbalance issues as the spit mkXIV..
ESPECIALLY with a base like A1 in existence..
Without aircraft like the 262, F86, or Mig 15 how would we combat the 29?
SKurj
-
Pongo,
Ever wondered why during WW2 every major country tried to produce fast speed fighters, not the biplanes that can turn circles around them?
Speed is life. So I want to fly Spitfire that has speed.
Also, note I'm not asking for some uber, low production plane in here. Spitfire XIV entered service in early 1944, about the same time or even before BF109G10 and before FW190D. So there should have been around the same number of planes produced as BF109G10. By the end of the war, even later Mk Spitfires were starting to roll of the production lines and I would understand if you say AH should not have them. But no, you want LW to fly latest BF109s and FW190s, while RAF should be stuck with Spitfire9. Even if it's a 1944 equiped Spitfire9 (which is still unclear), it's still an old 1942 Spitfire and there is not much to add to it.
P.S. Couple of years ago, when I used to fly in WB, I was in JG53 and used to fly BF109s. While I'm not as good in it now as before, trust me, I know what the plane is capable of when flown right.
mx22
[This message has been edited by mx22 (edited 06-13-2000).]
-
Dont know what you were replying too in my note. I know we are getting the 14. I just pointed out the effect of that. I will be flying it too. I am not going to go arround and work like a dog for every kill.
In a plane that is faster then a 51 climbs better then a 109g10, has the gun options of a f4u1c and turns a bit less then a spit ix and the fastest dive speed of any ww2 plane. oh ya it has the vision of a 51d as well. Ya ill kick its but with my supperior roll rate....I dont wonder you want it. I will be right there with ya.
Lets get it in the game and get it over with. Pyro can stop developing new planes right there and we can all perfect our homogeneous arena flying skills.
At last those spit pilots will stop being the underdogs...lol
Good thing we have so many pilots willing to fly such a crappy plane. Why there is something it is not best at!
-
Pongo,
Yak9U is coming in two weeks. You can as well switch on it right away as your 109 will be outclassed. Why to work on the kill, when Yak9U will give it all to you??? Or so you say.
People fly different planes because of the appeal of that plane to them. Of course, there are guys who just want to kill and don't care what they fly. They will switch to whatever the best plane in the arena at the moment, be it F4U-1C, P-51 or BF109G10. But there are plenty of other guys that keep on flying other planes. I am more then sure, that just because you will stop flying LW planes, others won't. I'm sure that Hristo with his careful selection of fights will keep on having great score, no matter if there is Sit14 in the arena or no.
mx22
-
I don't think we'll get the Spit XIV until perk aircraft come out. Then it will arive along with P51H, Ta 152 and P47M. In other words, it will be another outdated Spitfire.
I wish we did have a 1944 Spit 9. It would be a lot faster on the deck (about 25mph faster) and climb a lot better. Currently we have a standard 1942 Mk 9.
I'd like a faster RAF plane, but I don't think it should be a Spit XIV. If it's as good as some people are claiming it would unbalance the game. I think we should get the Tempest as a non perk plane, and when perks come out we should bypass the Spit 14 altogether and get a true end-of-war fighter for the RAF, like the Spiteful, Fury or Spit 21.
-
Hi Nash,
I have seen some people doubt that Spit9 is really a 1942 plane. That is the reason I said that it might be 1944 redesign of the plane.
Tempest will be a good ground attack plane, no doubts about this. But how can someone just leave out one of the most important and influncial planes just out of the picture? Spitfire plane series for RAF is like BF109 or FW190 series for Germany. Why in AH then RAF should be limited to flying inferior planes? We have BF109G10 and will get FW190D, I say bring in SpitXIV in arena to counter them. When we get to TA152 being considered for the arena, I'll start asking for a more powerful Spitfire then MkXIV.
Regarding balance in arena. SpitXIV has a monster torque and my guess it will be very hard to handle at low speeds because of it. It should not, and coul not turn as good as earlier Spits. It might be more manueverable then BF109G10, but it will be far from being able to make circles around every other plane in the arena.
mx22
-
Mx22,
Actually the Spit XIV turns a faster, slighty wider circle than the IX due to its increase in power and improved propeller. It can haul itself around and into angles of attack that would stall a IX.
Sisu
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Mx22,
Actually the Spit XIV turns a faster, slighty wider circle than the IX due to its increase in power and improved propeller. It can haul itself around and into angles of attack that would stall a IX.
Sisu
cc Karnak. Already figured I did mistake there (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Have to get home and check books, then will know how does it really stand up to Spit9. In any case, as you noted, it should turn about the same with Spit9.
mx22
-
OK fd_ski gave me a link where comparison between Spit XIV and Spit IX is made. I'm pasting it here:
Tactical comparison against the Spitfire IX
Range & Endurance- The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.
Speeds- At all heights the Mk XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.
Climb- The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.
Dive- The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.
Turning Circle- The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire Mk XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
Rate of Roll- Rate of roll is very much the same.
Conclusions- All-round performance of the Mk XIV is better than the Mk IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 mph faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Mik IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.
You can find all the info above, plus much more at:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html)
mx22
-
Mx you are twisting what I am saying. But that is fine. You say the Spit is too weak, I say it is just fine, You say Hristo can fly a 109, i say he could fly a Spit just as well, You say I need training.
You have no troubles in the spit Ix and you know it. You describe the 14 in your own words as an uber plane and then you say you need it for parity with aircraft that are inferior to it....
Nash dont imply the late spit Ixs were faster then the one we have. People will go to war with ya.
-
How about the mk 18 as perk plane to compete with the ta-152's and 51H's.
i got this off a website
========================================
As mentioned earlier, the Mk XIV was so successful that a sophisticated version, known as the "Super Spitfire", was built. The "tear drop" canopy was used again and with a 2-stage, 2-speed 2375 HP Griffon 67 engines, a modified fuselage and wing shape, the Spitfire Mk XVIII was introduced. This aircraft was capable of over 470 mph, and production started in March 1945. 300 were
produced.
==============================
[This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 06-13-2000).]
-
Pongo,
The Spitfire is (and was) a great plane, no doubt about that. It has been my experience, however, that no matter what game you are playing, a well flown 109 has equal or better chances of wining a fight with a well flown Spitfire in the "right" version for the era.
Your opinion about the Spitfire being a wonder weapon is simply wrong.
As for the "offbalancing" factor of the MkXIV that you refered to, it also might be wrong. In WB, we have 190s, Mustangs, Corsairs, Yaks, MkXIV Spitfires, as well as other famous late war planes. In no way is the Mk14 an offbalancing factor. The arenas are not full of Spitfires.
...and this is off topic, but I just wanted to mention that the MkIX and the MkXIV were very similar in the air - just becasue something is faster does not mean it has to be considerably unglier in terms of flight characteristics.
--------------------------------------
S/L rf-a,
No. 303 (Polish) Sqn RAF
"Northolt Wing"
[This message has been edited by rfa (edited 06-13-2000).]
[This message has been edited by rfa (edited 06-13-2000).]
-
Rfa.
I started in response to this statment
by eye.
"Give me a mk 8 a mk 7 or a mk 12. Any of those planes can whip any us german or japanese plane"
to this I responded
"The spit can allready hand it to any german plane. What is you point...that it always should?"
That question never recieved an answer. Just a lot of spit pilot insults and retoric. The spit we have is fine. It should beat any plane in the plane set much of the time in the hands of an equal pilot. I gota say I find the opinion that Spit IX pilots are flying with some kind of handy cap silly.
-
Pongo, a standard Spit 9 will do approx 335mph at sea level. A 1944 Spit 9 with 150 octane fuel will do 360mph.
All versions of the Spit 9 apart from the early production versions using a Merlin 61 with +15lb boost will easily outclimb the Spit we have in AH.
I think what people are trying to say Pongo, is not that the Spit is incapable of scoring victories in, but that it is hard to survive in. From my own experiences, I kept getting chased and caught by small packs of enemy fighters. I don't see any way of surviving an encounter with 3-4 enemies when you are in a Spit, they chase you down to quickly for any hope of running away.
How many of the players in AH with the best K/D ratios fly Spits? And how many fly 109s?
-
Ok, I went and checked the kill stats. I wish I had a good enough connection to play instead (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Top 5 sorted by kill/death in tour 4 (last complete tour)
Pilot...Spit9...P51....G10... .F4U1C...190A8
ons......0-0....0-0....0-0....48-1.....0-0
ypsilon..1-0...177-2...0-0.....0-0....16-0
handy....0-0....3-0....0-0....71-6.....0-0
Vila.....3-1..150-18...0-0.....0-0.....0-0
Hristos..0-0....0-0...104-9....0-0...190-28
Average..4-1...17-1....12-1...17-1.....7-1
There may be pilots with good k/d in the Spit, but they aren't in the top 5 and their ratios dont get anywhere near the P51, the G10 and F4U-1c.
-
Pongo, every side deserves a plane from a given era - when talking about a 190D or 109K, or TA152, one has to mention the MkXIV.
As for the spitfire pilots flying with a handicap you mentioned, I agree with you, it does not exist - but, when it comes to speed, its main rivals can outrun it 90% of the time. I am sorry, but the real test of how succesful a plane is lies with how many planes it can shoot down and live another day. In scenarios, what I mostly fly in WB, spits are regularly "outscored" by 109s and 190s becasue of one sinple thing - speed.
The Spitfire can hold its own when facing 109s or 190s in the right version for the era, but it is by no means a wonder weapon, and its a very hard plane to survive in over a long period of time. The MkXIV should be modeled if more late war (1944-45) planes are modeled - it belongs there. As for unbalancing the game - IT WON'T.
------------------
-
Pongo, every side deserves a plane from a given era - when talking about a 190D or 109K, or TA152, one has to mention the MkXIV.
As for the spitfire pilots flying with a handicap you mentioned, I agree with you, it does not exist - but, when it comes to speed, its main rivals can outrun it 90% of the time. I am sorry, but the real test of how succesful a plane is lies with how many planes it can shoot down and live another day. In scenarios, what I mostly fly in WB, spits are regularly "outscored" by 109s and 190s becasue of one sinple thing - speed.
The Spitfire can hold its own when facing 109s or 190s in the right version for the era, but it is by no means a wonder weapon, and its a very hard plane to survive in over a long period of time. The MkXIV should be modeled if more late war (1944-45) planes are modeled - it belongs there. As for unbalancing the game - IT WON'T.
-----------------------
S/L rf-a
No. 303 (Polish) Sqn
"Northolt Wing"
-
Also the current Spitfire F.IX is about 10mph too fast at all altitudes(IMO). If people think that it's slow now...
-
Yawn
"
mitsu has 166 kills and has been killed 15 times in the Spitfire Mk IX."
thanks Mitsu...saved my but there.
and that is in half a tour.
And
Please look back up this thread for these little gems.
poor misunderstood me...
"Certainly lets get a late Spit Ix or Spit XVI.
I would even say the 4 HS load out should be there.(if the negatives that kept it off of line machines can be modeled as well.)
"
One of the spit camp
"
The day we get the MkXVI instead of the MkXIV is the day I cancel my account. Sorry, but giving us the MkXVI would just be giving us a plecebo. "See, its got a late mark number, so its got to be equivilent of a late war plane, go get slaughtered in your new MkIIIV, er, XVI". The MkXVI is a MkIIIV with an Packard built Merlin engine. Its performance is not better than the MkIX in any way. If they aren't going to give us a late war Spitfire, fine. But don't insult my knowledge by giving me a plecebo with a high Mk number.
Sisu
"
please go review the rest of the top of this thread.
very reasonable post followed by a guy named Nashwan
"Pongo can you find one of these threads where people have claimed the Spit XVI is as big an improvement as the the 109G10 is?
It's an interesting comparison you make, because the IX and G6 are contemporaries, as are the XIV and G10. Of course we have the G10 already....
"
Well I dont know the details but certainly 25mph on the deck is a nice boost and will make it so Mitsu doesnt get killed a few of those 15 times...
That was my starting point in this whole pathetic discorse. If there is an intermediat plane between the IX(early) and the spit XIV that gives the spit some more legs and a cut down rear canopy and brings it up to late 1944 standard surely lets start with that.
AND IN CANADIAN MARKINGS!
I can just see it. We will get this plane next release (1.4) and everyone will say "whos ^&%$^&^ idea was it to give the spit 25mph on the deck. Its unstoppable now! and you dweebs will all point to me...and funked will choke to death laughing and hand MX 10 bucks for getting me to fight his battle for him...
Can we close this.
Pongo
Spit lover.
FW pilot.
-
Pongo - would you prefer a Mk XVI with 150 octane fuel to a Mk XIV then...? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Pongo,
So far I have seen nothing from you that would have proved that SpitXIV will be uber plane. So instead of complaining, give us all a proof. Maybe then, and only then, I'll say that you right and we don't need SpitXIV in AH.
mx22
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
Yawn
very reasonable post followed by a guy named Nashwan
"Pongo can you find one of these threads where people have claimed the Spit XVI is as big an improvement as the the 109G10 is?
It's an interesting comparison you make, because the IX and G6 are contemporaries, as are the XIV and G10. Of course we have the G10 already....
"
Well I dont know the details but certainly 25mph on the deck is a nice boost and will make it so Mitsu doesnt get killed a few of those 15 times...
From the AH performance tables:
109G6...335mph at SL 390mph at 22k ft
109G10..370mph at SL 450mph at 22k ft
From memory
Spit9.....335mph at SL 408mph at 28k ft
44 Spit9..360mph at SL 408mph at 28k ft
The Spit gains 25mph at low level, nothing at altitude. The 109 gains 35mph at low level, 60mph at altitude. Seems to me the G10 is a huge improvement over the G6, while the 1944 Spit is a minor improvement over the 1942 Spit.
Pongo, however you try to rationalise it, it is simply unfair restricting RAF aircraft to 1942 or earlier. Allowing tuned versions of 1942 planes isn't really going to even things out.
-
Originally posted by mx22:
Pongo,
So far I have seen nothing from you that would have proved that SpitXIV will be uber plane. So instead of complaining, give us all a proof. Maybe then, and only then, I'll say that you right and we don't need SpitXIV in AH.
mx22
MX
I see no evidence that there is anything wrong with the Spit Ix. So until you prove it quit complaining.
The only evidence that the 14 would be baaaad news I need was provided by a tedios person that goes by the handle MX22
"Conclusions- All-round performance of the Mk XIV is better than the Mk IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 mph faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Mik IX. "
How will MX twist this one around...the world wonders...
-
Pongo,
Next time replying, do me a favor. Read the whole post, not the end. If you read the post you'll see, that it climbs just a bit better then SpitIX, it turns as good as SpitIX and it's speed is higher then SpitIX. For this reason, SpitXIV was recomended over SpitIX. Btw, it's a new version of Spitfire, do you really expect it to be of worser perfomance then SpitIX.
As for evidence why SpitIX should be "replaced" by the newer Mk in AH, read my posts above. I'm tired of telling you that SpitIX is too slow. It's not even only me now who says it. But wait, Pongo reads only stuff that supports his POV... No wonder...
Btw, still waiting from you a prove that SpitXIV would unbalance arena. Summary that you gave me in your post, is nothign else, but statement that says SpitXIV is better then SpitIX.
mx22
-
I just think that the XVI would be a better incremental step.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
I just think that the XVI would be a better incremental step.
Ok I understand what you mean now. But as someone above said, mkXVI is nothign else, but the same SpitfireIX airframe with the same licence built Merlin engine. I guess Brits were picky about small things like that and decided to give it a new Mk number. I also don't think it justifies giving us a late production MkIX/XVI for the reason, it would not give RAF planes enough additional performance to stand up to real 1944 designed plane such as BF109G10 and FW190D. Yes it would be a bit faster and a bit better climber, but it's not a match to SpitXIV and BF109G10. Also note, that report above said climbing speed is only marginally better in SpitXIV, that probably means BF109G10 will hold an edge over MkXIV in vertical.
mx22
-
We are all complaining that the spit is too slow. It cant escape. Well it could escape more with 25mph more on the deck and its supperior dive.
Dont worry. I am not pyro. I dont decide. But you are giving me excellent ammo to discredit what you want. The spit XVI would be a nice addition to the game as it stands. The Spit XIV would be an excellent limited release plane. Dont be supprised if thats how this shakes out in the end.
-
Yes, we should get an incremental step because thats what the LW guys got, oh, wait...the LW guys jumped right to the end of the line and got a Bf109G-10, which for all intents and purposes is a Bf109K-4. They're also crying over and over for the Fw190D-9 and nobody is coming around a telling them that the aircraft would be imbalancing, even though most people here also state that it would easily beat a MkXIV.
So, why do German planes get a free ride from the AH community?
Pongo, the difficulty with flying the MkIX isn't killing a single opponent, its the fact that once you commit, you have to win or die. There is no egress. Thus you end up with a bunch of guys lynching the dweeb who is flying the Spitfire (because after all, he is cheating by flying such an easy aircraft) because there is no way in hell that he can escape. If we were just flying against 1942 planes, we could have a shot at escaping.
Pongo, do you believe that in 1942 the Spitfire MkIX was so ahead of its time that it was still fully competitive in '44 and '45?
Why do people keep confusing the MkXIV with an ultra-late war plane like the Ta152? I will be extemely disappointed in HTC if it ends up as a special "reward" plane. The Mk F.21 would be a good selection for the "reward" version of the Spitfire. The MkXIV entered service before the Bf109G10, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9 and Me262. The F.21 was a contemary of the Ta152.
I am getting really bitter about people who fly Bf109G-10s, Fw190s and F4U1-Cs calling the Spitfire and its pilots names. These aircraft played a significant part in winning and securing our freedoms. One American player even stated that he hated the Spitfire and wished that it had never been made.
In AH nancy boys do not fly Spitfires, they fly Bf109G-10s, Fw190s, P-51Ds and F4U1-Cs. Thus my new signature.
------------------
Real men fly inlines, nancy boys fly radials.
Sisu
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 06-14-2000).]
-
Sisu.
You have to ignore alot of what I have said to make those statments. Good luck with your spit XIV guys. Like I said, Ill be there with ya when you get it.
-
Karnak,
Why I disagree with Pongo on his view on Spitfire MkXIV, I can't agree with the method you chose to fight for it. You have to understand why people so afraid of new later Spitfires. It's not because they don't want you and me to have a better plane, but because someone sometime ago said plane will unbalance arena. You just have to prove that plane is far from uber.
mx22
[This message has been edited by mx22 (edited 06-14-2000).]
-
I really don't understand this Pongo character.
The best spitfire late in the war was the MkXIV. It was a plane that could compete with Doras, and 109Ks.
The MkIX is a great all around plane, but it is at a severe disadvantage when facing very late Luftwaffe birds. The MkXVI, like someone said, was a Packard powered Spitfire with a bubble canopy. It was "better" then the MkIX, but it still would have trouble with 190Ds and 109Ks.
I really don't understand your problem Pongo, I reall don't.
Get over your spitfire bias. Then talking about very late war ETO planes, the MkXIV should be mentioned. When modeling a 190D or 109K, a MkXIV SHOULD be modeled.
...and don't give me this crap about MkXIVs offbalancing the arena. We have them in WB, and in no way is it a offbalancing factor.
Spitfire guys, don't settle for anything else that late in the war! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------------------
S/L rf-a,
No. 303 (Polish) Sqn
"Northolt Wing"
(http://www.raf303.org/jacek/RF-AMkV.jpg)
-
...and Pongo, the MkXIV is not uber, nor does it have a handicap.
It should be there becasue we are talking about late war planes. ...and it would be nice to see a RAF plane with the speed advantage over its main rivals.
-
You have to ignore alot of what I have said to make those statments. Good luck with your spit XIV guys. Like I said, Ill be there with ya when you get it.
You want a plane to balance against planes that dont exist in the game. You left out the 262 for some reason
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
You have to ignore alot of what I have said to make those statments. Good luck with your spit XIV guys. Like I said, Ill be there with ya when you get it.
You want a plane to balance against planes that dont exist in the game. You left out the 262 for some reason
Pongo,
If it was upto me, I would have handled you your 262 and then see how much you can kill with it. Uber or no, it just too fast for it's own good, plus poor climb and long approaches for landing and takeoff mean you'll be an easy meat for me. Of course given I have some late war plane, not puny slow SpitIX in which flying alone into enemy terretory is like an invetation for others to kill me.
mx22
-
Pongo - look at my 4th post. See the climbrate figure for the Mk VIII. That superiority over the Mk XIV would last up to 14,000ft at least. Hmmm, looks like you get more than just 25mph extra doesn't it?
-
Sorry Juzz. So the VIII outclimbs the XIV?
MX.Its all about you I guess.
-
I can't believe some people here claim the Spit XIV would unbalance the arena.
(Well, now that I think of it, at the time the dedicated LW pilots of WB also claimed the XIV would be an uberplane.)
Well this is not what happened in WB.
The WB Spit XIV has so much torque that it's really difficult to handle in turns. In truth, it's my opinion that very few people fly the Spit XIV when it becomes available. They keep on flying the Spit XIX because it's easier to fly.
It may be supposed to turn as well as the Spit XIX, but I can tell you I have always had a hell of a time keeping up with Spit XIXs in turns. In fact, when I fly it (I try to fly it often), I don't turn. Ever. I use it as a pure energy fighter. The beast has always a tendancy to go into spin when in tight turns.
Even pilots from dedicated RAF squads will more often fly the Spit XIX than the Spit XIV when it becomes available.
Pilots who want speed fly the P51D, the F4U or the FW190 instead.
And talking about speed, I've never been able to gain much on a P51D when flying the Spit XIV (same initial E-state). (But then, I'm not a real expert.)
If you think the Spit XIV is going to be the next uberplane, you're dead wrong. I rather think it will be, as in WB, an expert's plane flown by a minority.
Of course it will depend on how HTC models the plane, but if I'm not mistaken they're the same guys that modeled the WB variant...
BTW, I'm happy to join the AH community. I just began my 2-weeks trial, but from what I've seen, I think I'm here to stay. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
DrSoya
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Part of Northolt Wing (http://www.raf303.org/northolt)
-
Pongo, the problem is that we have a 450 mph Me 109.
-
Pongo - The 1944 Spitfire with "25mph extra" is either a LF.IX, LF.VIII or XVI running on 150 octane fuel, which gives it a better climbrate(~5500fpm initial) and equal or slightly better speed than a XIV below 14,000ft. Might as well have the Mk XIV anyway.
-
DR .
welcome. I dont know.. I was just going by what was posted earlier.
Funked. The 109 must not get that speed very often cause it usually cant catch a 51 which is arround 425 isnt it?
Juzz. There seems to be very little aggreement about the effect of the later war engines and fuel and etc on the spit IX. I thought it was a great idea to improve the Spit some what. From the totaly ignorant reactions I recieved you would think I asked to remove the thing. Now you say, might as well take the spit XIV as the XVI is better...
or as good. Well we have gone full circle then.
This has turned into a real Ron Jeramy debating society.
OUT.
-
LOL Pongo I guess we must be bored, we're getting into re-runs on these debates.
Once 1.03 hits the ftp site I'm sure we'll have some new things to talk about. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
10 points for mentioning Ron Jeremy!!!
-
It's all funked's fault, he started this mess! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Originally posted by juzz:
Pongo - The 1944 Spitfire with "25mph extra" is either a LF.IX, LF.VIII or XVI running on 150 octane fuel, which gives it a better climbrate(~5500fpm initial) and equal or slightly better speed than a XIV below 14,000ft. Might as well have the Mk XIV anyway.
The figures from the ADFU:
.........4000ft..10000ft...14 000ft..20000ft
Spit9....364mph...370mph...39 0mph...388mph
Spit14...385mph...389mph...39 6mph...423mph
The 14 is clearly a lot faster than a IX/XVI at all alts. Whilst a 150 octane IX or XVI would be an improvement, it wouldn't be a genuine 1944 aircraft.
Pongo, imagine if the LW planeset consisted of the 109G6 and the 190A4 at the moment. Then someone comes along and says you can have a 1944 plane, as long as it's the 190A8. Oh and only 2 cannons, because 4 would be too uber.
-
Nashwan; look at the Mk VIII numbers, they are more representative of how a 150 octane Merlin 66 Spitfire would really perform. Eg: 409mph at 14,000ft.
-
Pongo,
Imagen this situation. AH has SpitV, SpitIX and SpitXIV, while LW has only BF109F4, BF109G2, BF109G6 and FW190A8. Now LW guys start to bargain for a late war model and I come along and say BF109G10/K4 is too uber. How about HTC simply model BF109G6, which uses better fuel. I bet there would have been quiet a lot of LW people on the board here screaming at me.
Back to reality, LW has full line of BF109s, while RAF stuck in 1942. Here comes along Pongo and says all RAF deserves is SpitIX with better fuel mix...
bla bla bla, I wish you no bad, but I think you should be more open minded to other people's needs.
mx22
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
4x20mm was an option on any Spit fitted with the C or E wing, i.e. about half the Vs, nearly all the IXs and all the XIVs and XVIs.
It was esy to convert to 4x20mm, much like the field kits the Luftwaffe used. Just take the old guns out and put the 20mm in it's place. It was something they could do in squadron service, not a factory mod.
Currently reading a Diary of a ww2 spit pilot..
He started in MKIX in early 43, he never flew a 9 fitted with 4 cannon, the impression I get from reading it is that with the reliability issues of the Hispano's that loading 2 20's and 4 303's was the safer choice so that at least you would have something to shoot back with once your cannon's failed..
SKurj
-
SKurj,
Don't know what was the problem, if there was one, with the 4 Hispono cannons in SpitIX, but fact stay a fact - there were only a few such equiped SpitIXs. Agian, books are home, so I can't give a total number of SpitIXs with this configuration, but trust me it was an extremely small number. And that is why I would be against this version coming in AH any time soon.
mx22
-
Guys
No matter what the circumstance of me getting a 190 a8. I would want it.
MX22.
If I was forced to fly the 109g6 every mission and pyro added the early 1944 bf109g6/ASM I would be singing from the hills.
I wish you all well.
-
Pongo,
You misread me, I only said you'll be getting better fuel. Heh no fancy engine boosts, only better octane fuel (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Just like you propose it to be done with RAF.
mx22
-
the only thing higher octain fuel will do is increase the time hi manifold pressure settings can be used.
the engine can be run harder before it breaks.
since we dont have to worry about engine life and breakdown in here the whole thing is irrelevant
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 06-15-2000).]
-
Cit,
I was just giving an example to Pongo, and I think it works weel for that purpose. Plus better fuel will add some extra speed to the plane (at least I think so).
mx22
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
the only thing higher octain fuel will do is increase the time hi manifold pressure settings can be used.
the engine can be run harder before it breaks.
since we dont have to worry about engine life and breakdown in here the whole thing is irrelevant
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 06-15-2000).]
I don't know if it will allow longer periods of boost, but the RAF used higher octane fuel to allow higher boost settings.
The standard boost setting was +18lbs, with 150 octane it was +25lbs. That's what gave the planes higher performance.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
Guys
No matter what the circumstance of me getting a 190 a8. I would want it.
MX22.
If I was forced to fly the 109g6 every mission and pyro added the early 1944 bf109g6/ASM I would be singing from the hills.
I wish you all well.
Wasn't the AS engine fitted with a bigger supercharger? Sort of like the difference between the Spit V and IX.
-
How about the tempest. Good speed, good climb (not in the spit 14 or 109k catagory) good guns can't turn for toejam. It's RAF.
-
Alternativly we RAF types might have to settle for a mk 18 or 22 with 150 octane fuel and a 4 cannon gun package (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
Originally posted by Pongo:
Guys
No matter what the circumstance of me getting a 190 a8. I would want it.
MX22.
If I was forced to fly the 109g6 every mission and pyro added the early 1944 bf109g6/ASM I would be singing from the hills.
I wish you all well.
Wasn't the AS engine fitted with a bigger supercharger? Sort of like the difference between the Spit V and IX.
[/B]
Ya as far as I know it was just different super whatever....then again I believe the db605d in the G10 was more of the same but here it counts as the same upgrade as from merlin to griffon so I dont know. There was a different supercharger(the one the packards used) in the later spit iXs as well. But I believe it just adressed reliability at alt not out put so it wouldnt be any different here.
-
The British used higher octane fuel to gain higher boost pressures and more power, while the Germans used methanol-water injection to achieve the same thing.
Eg: Merlin 66: normal 1700hp, 150 octane 2100hp(+23.5%). DB605AM: normal 1475hp, MW 50 1800hp(+22%).
-
The high-octane fuel and additives did not cause higher boost pressures by themselves. Modifications to the supercharger and/or boost control mechanism were required as well.