Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Kazaa on July 08, 2010, 09:23:35 PM
-
A Spitfire Mk. VC airframe with a 1,735hp engine. What's the worse that could happen? :devil
-
A Spitfire Mk. VC airframe with a 1,735hp engine. What's the worse that could happen? :devil
Well No. NO NO NO
No more dweebfires please!
-
Well No. NO NO NO
No more dweebfires please!
why on earth not? The spitfire did win the war pretty much single handedly, it deserves every single variant that was ever made!
Why waste time with more GV's and silly hangar queen bombers just give us a Spitfire Armada! :x
-
Because I like hangar queens... :neener:
-
Because I like hangar queens... :neener:
I like not getting killed by horde of them
-
I like not getting killed by horde of them
:headscratch: Huh? You don't like when a horde of hangar queens kill you?
-
You aren't keeping jup Kazaa. Bronk and I have been on the XII case for years. In my case since 1980 :)
While I'd love to have it for the history, you are basically talking about the AH Spit XVI in terms of low alt performance. It's a 1943 bird of course and much nicer looking then the XVI, but then again I'm biased :)
The highest scoring Spitfire Wing in the Fall of 1943 was the Tangmere Spit XII Wing made up of 41 and 91 Squadrons. Seen below in October 1943 after their best day when they downed 9 109s and 190s for no loss, October 20, 1943. Postwar research did prove there was no overclaims that day too.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Tangmere-Wing.jpg)
-
why on earth not? The spitfire did win the war pretty much single handedly, it deserves every single variant that was ever made!
I hope thats sarcasm.
Hate to burst everyones bubble, but the soviets were responsible for almost 3x as many casualties as the US and England COMBINED. :bolt:
-
You aren't keeping jup Kazaa. Bronk and I have been on the XII case for years. In my case since 1980 :)
While I'd love to have it for the history, you are basically talking about the AH Spit XVI in terms of low alt performance. It's a 1943 bird of course and much nicer looking then the XVI, but then again I'm biased :)
The highest scoring Spitfire Wing in the Fall of 1943 was the Tangmere Spit XII Wing made up of 41 and 91 Squadrons. Seen below in October 1943 after their best day when they downed 9 109s and 190s for no loss, October 20, 1943. Postwar research did prove there was no overclaims that day too.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Tangmere-Wing.jpg)
I know Guppy, I just like trolling the forum is all. :aok
I would rather have our old VC back, clipped this time ofc. (It would be the best dueling ride EVAR!) Oh, also the XVI @ 25lbs boost. :noid
-
You can have the xii when England wins another world cup.
-
I hope thats sarcasm.
Hate to burst everyones bubble, but the soviets were responsible for almost 3x as many casualties as the US and England COMBINED. :bolt:
not only that.....
why on earth not? The spitfire did win the war pretty much single handedly, it deserves every single variant that was ever made!
Why waste time with more GV's and silly hangar queen bombers just give us a Spitfire Armada! :x
far as I read Hurri killed more and did more damage....but you should know that....
-
No more dweebfires please!
um ... you did read up on our squad history right meanie? ;)
and of course :aok to the XII
-
XII is the only major Spit wartime variant that isn't in the game. So :aok
(F.21 will probably never be added)
-
A big heck yeah.... :aok +1
-
I like not getting killed by horde of them
Guess it is much more honorable to be killed by a horde of pxx or fw's :devil.
semp
-
Is having one more spit going to make any difference, we have seven versions already. If we do end up getting it, some dweeb will cry for another type of spit to be brought on.
NO on spit XII!
-
you could say the same for the P-47M which was added, or requests for the FG-1 and 1A or any other aircraft really.
Off the top of my head I can think of at least 15 different WWII spit variants which fulfill the criteria for inclusion in AH, and which are all noticeably different from each other. and that doesnt even include the XVI :D
-
Just curious, how would a Spit VII stack up performance wise compared to the
1. Spit IX
2. Spit VIII
3. Spit XVI
?
-
Yes please.
There is always a need for more spitfires.
If we get it we should unperk the spit XIV too.
-
you could say the same for the P-47M which was added, or requests for the FG-1 and 1A or any other aircraft really.
Off the top of my head I can think of at least 15 different WWII spit variants which fulfill the criteria for inclusion in AH, and which are all noticeably different from each other. and that doesnt even include the XVI :D
And there are over 150 variants of 190s, we only have four. Five if you want to add TH-152 as a 190.
-
Just curious, how would a Spit VII stack up performance wise compared to the
1. Spit IX
2. Spit VIII
3. Spit XVI
?
A Spitfire VII, really a high-alt pressurized Spitfire VIII would have handling qualities most similar to the VIII. Many Mk.VII's had long 40' wings and would roll far worse though. Some VII's had standard 36' 10" wings. Of course since its Merlin 70 is optimized for high-alt work, it would really only dominate those aircraft in high-alt combat from a speed standpoint.
-
I think the MkXII would make a great addition,if only to put a stop to all the perk the spiteen. :devil
If the XII could be added like the 47M was I see no reason to not include it although I could name atleast a dozen planes we really need,I'm all for any new toys!
:salute
-
And there are over 150 variants of 190s, we only have four. Five if you want to add TH-152 as a 190.
fine, start a topic requesting some of them. :)
-
fine, start a topic requesting some of them. :)
NA, I don't want to. Besides, there are Russian, IJ, Italian, and French AC that are need more than another spit.
-
NA, I don't want to. Besides, there are Russian, IJ, Italian, and French AC that are need more than another spit.
fine, start a topic requesting some of them. :)
-
And there are over 150 variants of 190s, we only have four. Five if you want to add TH-152 as a 190.
Well you can play that numbers game with Spits too as there were numerous variants of the Spit IX for example. We only have one, and it's not the most numerous variant of the IX. By the time you throw in different combos of engines, wingtips, armament, rudders, elevators etc it's a long list :)
-
Spitfire list, we have the bolded models:
Spitfire Mk Ia (87 octane)
Spitfire Mk Ia (100 octane)
Spitfire Mk Ib
Spitfire Mk IIa
Spitfire Mk IIb
Spitfire Mk Va
Spitfire Mk Vb
Spitfire Mk Vc
Spitfire Mk Vc (clipped)
Spitfire Mk VII
Spitfire Mk VII (extended tips)
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII
Spitfire F.Mk VIII
Spitfire HF.Mk VIII
Spitfire F.Mk IX (Merlin 61)
Spitfire F.Mk IX (Merlin 63)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (clipped, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (clipped, 150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (clipped, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (clipped, 150 octane)
Spitfire LF.MK IXe (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.MK IXe (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire HF.Mk IX
Spitfire HF.Mk IX
Spitfire HF.MK IX (extended tips)
Spitfire Mk XII
Spitfire F.Mk XIV (100 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIV (150 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIVe (100 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIVe (150 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (100 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (150 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (100 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVIIIe
Spitfire F.21
I know I left off many engine/fuel/wing/armament combinations. I also didn't touch Seafires at all.
-
Spitfire list, we have the bolded models:
Spitfire Mk Ia (87 octane)
Spitfire Mk Ia (100 octane)
Spitfire Mk Ib
Spitfire Mk IIa
Spitfire Mk IIb
Spitfire Mk Va
Spitfire Mk Vb
Spitfire Mk Vc
Spitfire Mk Vc (clipped)
Spitfire Mk VII
Spitfire Mk VII (extended tips)
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII
Spitfire F.Mk VIII
Spitfire HF.Mk VIII
Spitfire F.Mk IX (Merlin 61)
Spitfire F.Mk IX (Merlin 63)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (clipped, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (clipped, 150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (clipped, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (clipped, 150 octane)
Spitfire LF.MK IXe (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.MK IXe (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire HF.Mk IX
Spitfire HF.Mk IX
Spitfire HF.MK IX (extended tips)
Spitfire Mk XII
Spitfire F.Mk XIV (100 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIV (150 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIVe (100 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIVe (150 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (100 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (150 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (100 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVIIIe
Spitfire F.21
I know I left off many engine/fuel/wing/armament combinations. I also didn't touch Seafires at all.
Pyro saw this and left for holidays.......... :devil
-
fine, start a topic requesting some of them. :)
Don't need to, i have others been doing already.
Karnak, looks interesting. How many where produced and saw action?
-
Don't need to, i have others been doing already.
Karnak, looks interesting. How many where produced and saw action?
All of them. The Spit XVIII didn't see it in WW2 but did after the war. It was basically a strengthened XIV. Kinda like the XVI to the IX
-
You know why there were so many variations of the Spitfire? The Brits couldn't get them right the first time. There are enough Spits in AH now, thank you.
-
You know why there were so many variations of the 109? The germans couldn't get them right the first time. There are enough 109s in AH now, thank you.
Fixed
-
:aok
-
You know why there were so many variations of the Spitfire? The Brits couldn't get them right the first time. There are enough Spits in AH now, thank you.
Fixed
Do you know why the American do not have some many variations in any AC, they had always got it right! :rock
-
nope, its because USA started building their fighters years after the spit and 109 were first built so there was less time to produce different variants. up to the end of WWII the production runs of US aircraft were years shorter than either the spit or 109.
also the US industrial machine was geared more towards cheaper more efficient mass production of mil hardware than the european manufacturers, who could therefore respond to tactical requirements quicker, albeit at the expense of production numbers and cost. european production was also far more widely dispersed than US production too, because our factories had bombers flying over them. eg. RR mostly hand-built Merlins vs Packards mostly line-built Merlins. spits largely hand built wings vs P-51 line-built wings. etc etc.
-
I hope thats sarcasm.
Hate to burst everyones bubble, but the soviets were responsible for almost 3x as many casualties as the US and England COMBINED. :bolt:
Must have missed the memo about the huge Soviet strategic bomber offensives that decimated the German oil
and transportation industries. Maybe there was a reason the aces on the Eastern Front piled up such high kill
numbers Mr Bubble Burster. I wonder how many divisions of Lend Lease T-34s served during WW2 as well.
-
dont be daft, everyone knows the USA won WWII all on their own after germany bombed pearl harbour. duh!
-
dont be daft, everyone knows the USA won WWII all on their own after germany bombed pearl harbour. duh!
Not saying that, although the Brits love to bring up how "late" the US came into the war. Two things I'd like
to point out. One, we were the most un-neutral neutral power in favor of the UK prior to Dec 1941. Two, the Allies
were in severe "backup" mode until June 42. So rag on the US all you like, we made our contribution.
-
nope, its because USA started building their fighters years after the spit and 109 were first built so there was less time to produce different variants. up to the end of WWII the production runs of US aircraft were years shorter than either the spit or 109.
also the US industrial machine was geared more towards cheaper more efficient mass production of mil hardware than the european manufacturers, who could therefore respond to tactical requirements quicker, albeit at the expense of production numbers and cost. european production was also far more widely dispersed than US production too, because our factories had bombers flying over them. eg. RR mostly hand-built Merlins vs Packards mostly line-built Merlins. spits largely hand built wings vs P-51 line-built wings. etc etc.
Which comes to my point, they got it right.
-
ffs, does it really matter who got it right and who didn't? Get back on topic.
+1 for the Spitfire XII
-
hey I'm very aware of the massive contribution the US made to defeating the Axis, as are the vast majority of yurpeans. there does seem to be a large contingent of americans who really do think the war started in dec '41 and the US won it on their own though. its just fun breakin their balls as I believe you chaps say :D
-
Spitfire list, we have the bolded models:
Spitfire Mk Ia (87 octane)
Spitfire Mk Ia (100 octane)
Spitfire Mk Ib
Spitfire Mk IIa
Spitfire Mk IIb
Spitfire Mk Va
Spitfire Mk Vb
Spitfire Mk Vc
Spitfire Mk Vc (clipped)
Spitfire Mk VII
Spitfire Mk VII (extended tips)
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII
Spitfire F.Mk VIII
Spitfire HF.Mk VIII
Spitfire F.Mk IX (Merlin 61)
Spitfire F.Mk IX (Merlin 63)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (clipped, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX (clipped, 150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (150 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (clipped, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (clipped, 150 octane)
Spitfire LF.MK IXe (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire LF.MK IXe (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire HF.Mk IX
Spitfire HF.Mk IX
Spitfire HF.MK IX (extended tips)
Spitfire Mk XII
Spitfire F.Mk XIV (100 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIV (150 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIVe (100 octane)
Spitfire F.Mk XIVe (150 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (100 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (150 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (100 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (bubble canopy, 100 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVI (bubble canopy, 150 octane)
Spitfire Mk XVIIIe
Spitfire F.21
I know I left off many engine/fuel/wing/armament combinations. I also didn't touch Seafires at all.
Karnak to the rescue. It just goes to show how few Mks. of Spitfire we really have. It pains me that HiTech will not allow allied rides to use 150 octane fuel.
-
nope, its because USA started building their fighters years after the spit and 109 were first built so there was less time to produce different variants. up to the end of WWII the production runs of US aircraft were years shorter than either the spit or 109.
also the US industrial machine was geared more towards cheaper more efficient mass production of mil hardware than the european manufacturers, who could therefore respond to tactical requirements quicker, albeit at the expense of production numbers and cost. european production was also far more widely dispersed than US production too, because our factories had bombers flying over them. eg. RR mostly hand-built Merlins vs Packards mostly line-built Merlins. spits largely hand built wings vs P-51 line-built wings. etc etc.
Strange, I could have sworn the 109 and Hurricane were introduced in 1937, Spitfire and P-36 1938 and the P-40 in 1939...not years of difference there. High performance fighters weren't necessary until the U.S. was dragged into the war, at which time the industrial machine developed such "cheap" aircraft as the P-40, F-4U, P-47, P-38, P-51, B-17 and B-24, none of which used wood or fabric in their airframes unlike the Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito. And, I guess you could consider low production numbers of 13,000 P-40s with only 9 operational variants, 16,000 P-51s with only 4 operational variants, 16,000 P-47s with only 6 operational variants and 10,000 P-38s with only 7 operational variants, all produced in shorter time periods from concept to retirement, to be low production numbers compared to 20,000 Spitfires with more than 25 operational variants produced over a 10 year span. Didn't realize the U.S. was the only country using assembly line production, that would account for the aircraft manufacturing facilities in Britain, Russia, Germany and Japan.
There are enough Spitfires in AH.
-
There are enough 109s in AH.
-
:neener: LMAO Bronk.
I'll rephrase, there are too many spitdweebs in AH as it is no need to feed them with more easy mode flying poopsticks. :D
-
blah blah blah
your style of argument might work at your local bar, wont wash with me though. thanks for your contribution anyway :)
-
:neener: LMAO Bronk.
I'll rephrase, there are too many spitdweebs in AH as it is no need to feed them with more easy mode flying poopsticks. :D
Then blame the pilot not the plane.
If an ac meets the AH criteria there is no reason for it to not be included.
-
Then blame the pilot not the plane.
If an ac meets the AH criteria there is no reason for it to not be included.
Aren't you against the b29 though?
-
Aren't you against the b29 though?
No, I am against it to be immediately included though.
-
No, I am against it to be immediately included though.
Oh, carry on then.
-
hey I'm very aware of the massive contribution the US made to defeating the Axis, as are the vast majority of yurpeans. there does seem to be a large contingent of americans who really do think the war started in dec '41 and the US won it on their own though. its just fun breakin their balls as I believe you chaps say :D
That is one of the biggest argument of WWII, "When did it started". Personally, it all depends what country you are that enter into it or was invaded. I got into a big argument on who defeated Germany, U.S./U.K. or Russians. I simply got technical on that question. U.S. and U.K. defeated Germany in the air, sea, Africa, Sicily, Italy and France. Russia just defeated them in the eastern front.
-
Strange, I could have sworn the 109 and Hurricane were introduced in 1937, Spitfire and P-36 1938 and the P-40 in 1939...not years of difference there. High performance fighters weren't necessary until the U.S. was dragged into the war, at which time the industrial machine developed such "cheap" aircraft as the P-40, F-4U, P-47, P-38, P-51, B-17 and B-24, none of which used wood or fabric in their airframes unlike the Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito. And, I guess you could consider low production numbers of 13,000 P-40s with only 9 operational variants, 16,000 P-51s with only 4 operational variants, 16,000 P-47s with only 6 operational variants and 10,000 P-38s with only 7 operational variants, all produced in shorter time periods from concept to retirement, to be low production numbers compared to 20,000 Spitfires with more than 25 operational variants produced over a 10 year span. Didn't realize the U.S. was the only country using assembly line production, that would account for the aircraft manufacturing facilities in Britain, Russia, Germany and Japan.
There are enough Spitfires in AH.
Just want to clarify. As an example. How many P47 operational variants? I count 1 B model, 4 C models, 24 different D models, 2 G models, 1 M model, 4 N models. That totals 35 production model P47s.
And the first production Jugs rolled off the line 5 years after the first Spit. BTW it was an all metal aircraft. No wood in the production
Based on your description of production models, the Spit list would be the I/II as the II was built in a different factory then the I, similar to the P51B vs C. The Spit V, the Spit VI, VII VIII, IX/XVI and XII, XIV and 21.
So that's 9 production variants vs your 6 P47s and the Spit was in service 5 years prior to the Jug.
-
Just want to clarify. As an example. How many P47 operational variants? I count 1 B model, 4 C models, 24 different D models, 2 G models, 1 M model, 4 N models. That totals 35 production model P47s.
And the first production Jugs rolled off the line 5 years after the first Spit. BTW it was an all metal aircraft. No wood in the production
Based on your description of production models, the Spit list would be the I/II as the II was built in a different factory then the I, similar to the P51B vs C. The Spit V, the Spit VI, VII VIII, IX/XVI and XII, XIV and 21.
So that's 9 production variants vs your 6 P47s and the Spit was in service 5 years prior to the Jug.
Hold on her. Lets just drop it with the spits and give us a dam Beaufighter! Am I right?
-
That is one of the biggest argument of WWII, "When did it started". Personally, it all depends what country you are that enter into it or was invaded. I got into a big argument on who defeated Germany, U.S./U.K. or Russians. I simply got technical on that question. U.S. and U.K. defeated Germany in the air, sea, Africa, Sicily, Italy and France. Russia just defeated them in the eastern front.
however russia killed alot more germans than we did.
-
I can think of 10 planes that we DONT HAVE that need to come in before the spit. Spitfires made a HUGE contribution to the war, but do we really need another version before we get the Pe-2, Tu-2, and the He111? I think you guys can make do with what you have.
Oh, and the B29 :noid
-
Hold on her. Lets just drop it with the spits and give us a dam Beaufighter! Am I right?
Without question :)
Just to be clear. I love the XII. I spent from 1980 on researching the XII and it's pilots and got to know lots of them. Those are my guys. I'd love to have it in AH cause it's personal. Those guys were my friends
That being said, there are other birds that should get into AH first, including the Beaufighter.
As for the Spits. I'd love it if they updated the Seafire to the Seafire III. I'd also like the IX to be an LFIX. And if I'm really wanting something done, I'd wished for a clipped Spitfire Vb and a Tropical Spitfire Vc to cover the MTO birds and the Aussies
Throw in the Oscar, and the Betty and maybe even a Dinah and we'd have fleshed out the PTO quite a bit.
-
however russia killed alot more germans than we did.
Of course they did as Germany and Russian been fighting over a year before U.S. started fighting. Not only that, Germany had well over 1.5 million men on Russian soil for over a year and a half.
I can think of 10 planes that we DONT HAVE that need to come in before the spit. Spitfires made a HUGE contribution to the war, but do we really need another version before we get the Pe-2, Tu-2, and the He111? I think you guys can make do with what you have.
Oh, and the B29 :noid
well, it is like i said before on this threat. AH need to add more Russian, IJ and Italian AC and introduce French AC too. Oh, and add He-111 and B-29.
-
Without question :)
Just to be clear. I love the XII. I spent from 1980 on researching the XII and it's pilots and got to know lots of them. Those are my guys. I'd love to have it in AH cause it's personal. Those guys were my friends
That being said, there are other birds that should get into AH first, including the Beaufighter.
As for the Spits. I'd love it if they updated the Seafire to the Seafire III. I'd also like the IX to be an LFIX. And if I'm really wanting something done, I'd wished for a clipped Spitfire Vb and a Tropical Spitfire Vc to cover the MTO birds and the Aussies
Throw in the Oscar, and the Betty and maybe even a Dinah and we'd have fleshed out the PTO quite a bit.
Sorry for my arrogant on the spits. how similar is the seafire to seafire II, IX to be LFIX? Could AH get change a few thing like what they did with the P-47M?
-
LFIX would mean using the same engine and performance as in the VIII we have.
Kev is the Seafire III guy but it's safe to say the LIII Seafire was one that filled a larger role then the one we have.
The Spitfire Vb we have is the earliest of the Vb. A clipped, cropped and clapped spitfire Vb with the engine optimized for low alt would be fun. The Tropical Spitfire Vc would cover North Africa, Malta, Tunisia, Italy and Australia and the CBI very well.
-
LFIX would mean using the same engine and performance as in the VIII we have.
So, we would not need a LFIX since there is no difference? It would be like asking for the P-51K where it the exactly the same as the "D" except the prop is 2 inch shorter.
Kev is the Seafire III guy but it's safe to say the LIII Seafire was one that filled a larger role then the one we have.
The Spitfire Vb we have is the earliest of the Vb. A clipped, cropped and clapped spitfire Vb with the engine optimized for low alt would be fun. The Tropical Spitfire Vc would cover North Africa, Malta, Tunisia, Italy and Australia and the CBI very well.
SO, all Hitech has to do is change the engin preformace from Vb to Vc? If that is the case and surely easy to make the changes, yes bring it on
-
The Vb has a wing specific to a 20mm cannon and 2 303s. It's cannon is fed by a 60 round drum
The Vc has the universal wing that allows for belt fet 20mm doubling the amount carried. The tropical Vc would also have the Vokes filter under the nose that changes the look and performance
-
As for the Spits. I'd love it if they updated the Seafire to the Seafire III. I'd also like the IX to be an LFIX. And if I'm really wanting something done, I'd wished for a clipped Spitfire Vb and a Tropical Spitfire Vc to cover the MTO birds and the Aussies
Seafire LF Mk.III for sure, and maybe junk our IIc for the earlier Ib for use in earlier snapshots/events (if there were any significant ones)?
the IX probably should be a clipped LF version (although imagine the whines about a MW "XVI"), which leaves no HF version (which we really should have). maybe a HF Mk.VIII or VII?
how similar is the seafire to seafire II, IX to be LFIX?
Seafire LF Mk.III had beefier low-alt optimised engine with ejector stacks, clipped wingtips (like our XVI), Mk.V Hispanos (like the Tempest), wing tanks (like VIII) plus some more carrier mods.
our IX is the HF version, the LF had low-alt optimised engine and (generally) clipped wingtips.
-
OK, so there really not much to do on the changes.
-
Just want to clarify. As an example. How many P47 operational variants? I count 1 B model, 4 C models, 24 different D models, 2 G models, 1 M model, 4 N models. That totals 35 production model P47s.
And the first production Jugs rolled off the line 5 years after the first Spit. BTW it was an all metal aircraft. No wood in the production
Based on your description of production models, the Spit list would be the I/II as the II was built in a different factory then the I, similar to the P51B vs C. The Spit V, the Spit VI, VII VIII, IX/XVI and XII, XIV and 21.
So that's 9 production variants vs your 6 P47s and the Spit was in service 5 years prior to the Jug.
Ok, there were 21 variants of the D model which consisted of minor improvements.
However, the Spitfire did use wood and fabric on the control surfaces, some even used spruce inside the wings, especially the early models. I thought it was common knowledge among the Spit fans.
The skins of the fuselage, wings and tailplane were secured by rivets and, in critical areas such as the wing forward of the main spar where an uninterrupted airflow was required, with flush rivets. In some areas, such as the rear of the wing, the top was riveted and the bottom fixed by woodscrews into sections of spruce later, pop-riveting would be used for these areas.
From 1943 on, flush riveting was used throughout the entire airframe; the first version of the Spitfire to change to flush riveting being the Mk XII Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon powered variants) closely followed by all Castle Bromwich built Mk IXs. At first, the ailerons, elevators and rudder were fabric-covered. However, when combat experience showed that fabric-covered ailerons were impossible to use at high speeds, fabric was replaced with a light alloy, enhancing control throughout the speed range.
-
no wood was used in the control surfaces, they were alloy, originally fabric covered. after BoB in late '40 they were alloy skinned.
no wood was used inside the wings. the clipped version of the replaceable wingtips were, however, made from a block of wood (they were only a few inches wide.) iirc the standard and extended tips were all alloy.
-
So, we would not need a LFIX since there is no difference? It would be like asking for the P-51K where it the exactly the same as the "D" except the prop is 2 inch shorter.
less fuel= less weight, no retractable tail wheel, different tail configuration
This is just off the top of my head.
-
our IX is the HF version, the LF had low-alt optimised engine and (generally) clipped wingtips.
No, our Mk IX is a Merlin 61 powered F.Mk IX. Spitfire HF.Mk IXs were powered by the Merlin 70 and were optimized for even higher altitudes.
-
Lets clear up the Seafire -
IIb - Converted from RAF F.Vb's
IIc (as in-game, maybe) - Merlin 46, only produced for approx 2 months (maximum)
LIIc - Improved low alt Merlin 32 engine (remaining production), all IIc converted to LIIc
LIII - Merlin 55M, first Seafire with folding wings, MOST common of all the Seafires manufactured.
Prod numbers -
IIc / LIIc - 372
LIII - 1220 or 1218 (sources quote both numbers)
Interestingly the Navy didn't learn from their mistake with the Merlin 46 on the IIc and the LIII started off as an FIII with a Merlin 55. Very quickly changed to a Merlin 55M. Looking at pics it seems a great many LIII were flown clipped off carriers.
All used the standard Spit Hispano (no Mk V's).
Reason for 'maybe' on the in-game model - In-game model seems to be hybrid Merlin 45 F.Vb with a 'c' wing.
-
No, our Mk IX is a Merlin 61 powered F.Mk IX. Spitfire HF.Mk IXs were powered by the Merlin 70 and were optimized for even higher altitudes.
oh yeah, got it into my head our IX was the high alt version because its our high(er) alt version. we need an HF merlin spit!
-
Be intersting if it would be possible to change things to support different engine configs from the hanger (can't be done at the moment)
So you pick a IX and get a choice of -
LF IX - With Merlin 66
F IX - With Merlin 61
HF IX - With Merlin 70
Maybe include a choice of wing tips also.
-
Seafire LF Mk.III had beefier low-alt optimised engine with ejector stacks, clipped wingtips (like our XVI), Mk.V Hispanos (like the Tempest), wing tanks (like VIII) plus some more carrier mods.
our IX is the HF version, the LF had low-alt optimised engine and (generally) clipped wingtips.
Not all Seafire L III's had clipped wings. For some reason, they were also designated L III's and not 'LF Mk.III'. Don't know why, maybe Guppy can answer that.
Also, Spitfire F IX's were starting to be equipped with a Merlin 63 rather than the 61 when the LF and HF designations came about, but I don't think we'll have a chance to have a 63-powered Spit IX :(
-
All used the standard Spit Hispano (no Mk V's).
got that from wiki, dont laugh though the reference is morgan and shacklady. by coincedence I ordered a copy last week, hasnt arrived yet though. I'd bet my car guppy has a copy ;)
-
I'M thinking we need a few new 190s and extend the two week trial to four weeks
just to see what happens next.
I guess a few new British dweeb rides wouldn't hurt either.
while we are at it, why not make it all radar all the time and remove strats and towns just to be safe :neener:
froger
-
my book finally arrived :D
Production of the (Seafire) Mk III was increasing and with it many major modifications were being added on the line. The Hispano Mk II cannons were replaced by the Mk V, a short barreled light weight weapon. The wing was also adapted to receive four 25lb or 60lb head rockets; two x 250lb GP bombs; one x 500lb bomb under the centre section.
theres also plenty of pics of Mk IIIs with the Mk V hispanos - the short barrel is a dead giveaway.
edit: theres also 2 versions of some docs for transporting Mk IIIs including a table of weights for removable items, one says "20mm Hispano cannon" the other says "20mm Mk V Hispano cannon."
I'm making the case for a clipped L Mk III with Mk V hispanos and proper bomb/rocket loadout :aok
-
+1 :aok
Without the Spitfire you all would be speaking german today ;)
And also Spits > any US Plane :neener: When in doubt, check my sig which is from an US Pilot :lol
-
+1 :aok
Without the Spitfire you all would be speaking german today ;)
LMAO...yeah riiiight. You thinking Alice in Wonderland is a biography too? :rofl :lol :rofl :lol We Americans would still be speaking the same language, can't say the same about Europe.
And also Spits > any US Plane :neener: When in doubt, check my sig which is from an US Pilot :lol
Just goes to show how "easy mode" those dweeb planes are.
-
Just goes to show how "easy mode" those dweeb planes are.
It goes to show that your planes are watermelon :lol
LMAO...yeah riiiight. You thinking Alice in Wonderland is a biography too? :rofl :lol :rofl :lol We Americans would still be speaking the same language, can't say the same about Europe.
Alrite lets take this further, a fully nazi occupied Europe facing an unprepared US.
German industry producing without hinderence since Britain can't be used as an airbase to raid german citys and industrial centers.
Then of course your prime glory fighter the P-51 which was made on request by the british and powered by a british designed engine, now that Britain is in nazi hands theoretically speaking there would be no P-51.
Good luck with your Jugs against 262's rolling out in full production :D
And if you didn't get it by now, it was a joke with a tiny bit of truth in it ;)
-
And if you didn't get it by now, it was a joke with a tiny bit of truth in it ;)
:neener: You're alternate history is a bit off. :D
You forgot Russia. With the lend lease program, a total disregard for human life and the Russian winter, they held the Germans off long enough to build their army and industrial system, then proceeded to defeat Hitler's 6th Army. Without U.S. involvement, the war in Europe would most likely have continued for a few more years and Britain would have maintained sovereignty since Hitler lacked the foresight and resources for a full scale invasion.
-
:neener: You're alternate history is a bit off. :D
You forgot Russia. With the lend lease program, a total disregard for human life and the Russian winter, they held the Germans off long enough to build their army and industrial system, then proceeded to defeat Hitler's 6th Army. Without U.S. involvement, the war in Europe would most likely have continued for a few more years and Britain would have maintained sovereignty since Hitler lacked the foresight and resources for a full scale invasion.
You mean the Russia which begged the allies to open a second front for 4 years cause they couldn't keep them at bay by themselves? And you still assume that this would be the same nazi germany who is getting bombed every night and day which in this theoretical scenario wouldn't be the case.
And with all Europe occupied they would be able to put their full power against the russians and without the US/UK second front in Africa things would look mighty bleak for the soviets.
Many many factors would play in this (British inventions of radar, sonar and the enigma codebreakers etc etc etc.), I am not saying that the US would go under without a fight but it would be a very hard one facing the technological superior germans at their industrial prime. :)
Enough of this headgame, back on topic.
Yes to the Spitfire Mk.XII. :aok
-
You mean the Russia which begged the allies to open a second front for 4 years cause they couldn't keep them at bay by themselves? And you still assume that this would be the same nazi germany who is getting bombed every night and day which in this theoretical scenario wouldn't be the case.
So you're saying it took the Germans 4 years to get to Stalingrad? Stalin didn't "beg" anything, he ignored warnings from everyone and left his army unprepared for Hitler's invasion because he erroneously thought Hitler would maintain the non-aggression pact. Stalin didn't actually start doing anything until Hitler's armies crossed into Russian territory, then he asked for weapons, same as Churchill. On the flip side, if Hitler had listened to his commanders and went around Stalingrad to secure the Russian oil fields before doing anything else, your supposition of a full scale Nazi industrial system may have come to fruition assuming they had also found the other needed resources which they were starting to lack when Russia was invaded. Iron was a commodity that was beginning to shrink fast before the U.S. strategic bombing initiative was put into action. Speaking of which, it's highly likely that the Brits would have eventually wised up and started long range bombing on German industry...maybe.
The scariest part of the alternate history is the great possibility that Hitler would have produced the first nuke, imagine long range V-2s, or jet powered long range bombers, dropping nukes on London, Paris, Moscow, New York, Washington D.C. by 1945.
-
+1 :aok
Without the Spitfire you all would be speaking german today ;)
And also Spits > any US Plane :neener: When in doubt, check my sig which is from an US Pilot :lol
Probably the dumbest comment I've ever seen. I'm a Spit fanatic far beyond most anyone here. The Spit XII has been a history project of mine starting in 1980 and I was blessed to count many former Spit XII drivers as friends and spend time with them. I'll stack my Spit XII research up against anyone in the world. That being said, to claim the Spit did it all on it's own, is downright silly.
The Spit was the best Allied short range interceptor of the war. Had it been the be all, end all plane, the Mustang, Jug, etc would not have been. Problem was it lacked the range. It was a problem that never got solved for the Spit, so it was limited to short range penetrations into Europe. The 38s, Jugs and Mustangs could take it further. The Spit was never very effective as a fighter bomber even though it got used that way. As one former Spit XII driver turned XVI fighter bomber driver said to me. Due to the lack of air to air targets, they needed to find something to do with the Spits. He got shot down dive bombing sub pens with 500 pounders. A total waste of time that he still resented. While he was doing that, the Mustangs in particular were shooting down the LW over Germany.
Another Spit XII driver, who shot down JG54 ace Bully Lang, noted in his diary that he would much have preferred to go on Mustangs and get into the fight over Germany. He wrote this in August 44. He'd flown Mustang I's with 26 squadron prior to his time with 41 flying XIIs and then XIVs.
Without US support, England ends up isolated at best and potentially starved into submission. Germany was never in any position to threaten the US. The B of B made that clear enough. They didn't have the long range bombers or fighters to take on the British. Those two nice big oceans made for a nice barrier.
You also assume that US aircraft development wouldn't have had time to kick into high gear anyway.
In the end, I'd suggest some serious history research before you start making statements like that again.
-
Sounds like Guppy just got trolled. :lol
-
Think he meant w/o spitfires England eouldda been speaking German. The truth is. If Germany had invaded England there wouldda been thousands and thousands of American "volunteers" joining Canada or British armies, but that's another story. No denying spitfire/hurricanes saved England, but only after the Germans started bombing cities instead of air bases.
Semp
-
Sounds like Guppy just got trolled. :lol
The old farts don't speak emote :O
-
No denying spitfire/hurricanes saved England, but only after the Germans started bombing cities instead of air bases.
Semp
the hurricanes did most of the shooting down of bombers, The spitfires just encouraged the 109's to run away. ;)
Your last comment is a bit off though. Whilst the Germans made a tactical change to relieve pressure from 11 Group the other groups were still very much intact and always able to pitch into the battle. Hitler needed complete aerial superiority and thanks to the men of The Few they never achieved it. The more sorties made the less chance those experienced bomber pilots stood of going back home.
Thank god for the English channel :D
-
+1 :aok
Without the Spitfire you all would be speaking german today ;)
And also Spits > any US Plane :neener: When in doubt, check my sig which is from an US Pilot :lol
F6F had a higher k/d
-
Sounds like Guppy just got trolled. :lol
Nah, trolls at least attempt to be clever. That was just stupid.
-
Nah, trolls at least attempt to be clever. That was just stupid.
He was just offering his non-biased opinion guppy. (lol)
I guess its also a negligable fact that the hurricane had more kills than the spit.
-
Hurricanes had the easiest targets than the spits.
Semp
-
I guess its also a negligable fact that the hurricane had more kills than the spit.
Only in the Battle of Britain. Over the course of the war the Spit had far more kills.
-
Nah, trolls at least attempt to be clever. That was just stupid.
clever enough to bait and hook you :lol
-
clever enough to bait and hook you :lol
LOL that must be it. Looks more like a defensive backpeddle to me :)
-
LOL that must be it. Looks more like a defensive backpeddle to me :)
QFT :aok
-
LOL that must be it. Looks more like a defensive backpeddle to me :)
I am not the one that took a joke far too serious ;)
-
Viper you bad boy.
-
He's a heckuva tap dancer, I'll give him that :aok
-
I hope thats sarcasm.
Hate to burst everyones bubble, but the soviets were responsible for almost 3x as many casualties as the US and England COMBINED. :bolt:
I just saw this comment... pardon my late reply: that statement has a lot to be desired. While you make a statement of truth in statistics, there is far more to discuss than just a k/d ratio. :)
-
I just saw this comment... pardon my late reply: that statement has a lot to be desired. While you make a statement of truth in statistics, there is far more to discuss than just a k/d ratio. :)
this is true, and then i realized i got trolled by viper.