Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nimrod45 on January 23, 2014, 11:00:33 PM
-
I'm sure this one will be popular and the result will be an inbox full of fan mail but here it is.
From Wikipedia:
Mk XVI (type 361)[edit]
A late Spitfire Mk XVIE with the teardrop canopy.This is TD248, currently flying at Duxford.
The Mk XVI was the same as the Mk IX in nearly all respects except for the engine, a Merlin 266. The Merlin 266 was the Merlin 66 and was built under licence in the USA by the Packard Motor Company. The "2" was added as a prefix in order to avoid confusion with the engines, as they required different tooling. All Mk XVI aircraft produced were of the Low-Altitude Fighter (LF) variety. This was not determined by the length of the wings (clipped wings were fitted to most LF Spitifres), but by the engine, which had been optimised for low-altitude operation. All production Mk XVIs had clipped wings for low altitude work and were fitted with the rear fuselage fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gal.[38] Many XVIs featured cut-down rear fuselages with "bubble" canopies. On these aircraft the rear fuselage tank capacity was limited to 66 gal.[38]
Because of a slightly taller intercooler and rearranged accessories on the Packard Merlins a new, bulged upper cowling was introduced and also appeared on late production IXs.[51]
Armament for most Mk XVIs consisted of 2 × 20 mm Hispano II cannon - each with 120 rpg - and 2 × .50 calibre Browning machine guns - each with 250 rpg. 1 × 500 lb (227 kg) bomb could be carried underneath the centre rack, and 1 × 250 lb (114 kg) bomb could be slung under each wing. Some production aircraft had rear fuselage fuel tanks in addition to the main tank which allowed it to fly approximately as far as the Spitfire Mk VIII. Problems with the licence-built engines limited introduction to front-line squadrons for several months. A total of 1,054 Mk XVIs were built by Castle Bromwich.[22]
I dont know if is correct or not but if a Spixteen has 75 more gallons of fuel it could be used to anger even more haters. It would dang near double the range. If this is correct this would be my wish.
-
That rear tank was an add on as needed. If you read the manual, it had to be burned off before engaging in any maneuvers. You might do better wishing for the fuel burn value to be lowered in the arena.
-
When they can model repetitive motion neck injuries from Stixteen stirring. :rolleyes:
-
Never seen the Spixteen stick stirring but definitely seen it done in the 190's.
-
Never seen the Spixteen stick stirring but definitely seen it done in the 190's.
you wouldn't be able to see it from inside a spixteen...have to be looking at it from the 6 oclock position while flying a plane without training wheels.
-
Oh, you didn't have anything intelligent to say? Move on.
-
just following the example of the original post...
-
just following the example of the original post...
It's not nice to pick on somebody who needs crutches. He can't help his terrible flying. :(
-
It's not nice to pick on somebody who needs crutches. He can't help his terrible flying. :(
Since when can't a good pilot take off on a good plane? If you can't shoot down a Spit16 that's your problem, not the guy's who flies it.
Plus I find Spit16s easy to shoot down, so sure, give them extra fuel. Although I'm not sure if high back Spitfires had the option for an aux fuel tank. :headscratch:
-
That rear tank was an add on as needed. If you read the manual, it had to be burned off before engaging in any maneuvers. You might do better wishing for the fuel burn value to be lowered in the arena.
We have a similar problem with quite a few planes that are already in the game. Can a P-51 maneuver with fuel in it's aux tank? Can any of our aircraft drop drop-tanks while maneuvering? See my point...
-
It would just be an optionional higher fuel loading. You could take it or leave it like the P-51. It could be burned first on the way to the fight so when you arrived it would be empty and you would be at your fighting weight and if it is historically accurate there shouldn't even be an issue of what people think about it because AH doesn't build their planes based on what would be nice or what would be cool.
On another note I can't even believe the way some people behave in here. I took a four year break from the game and I don't remember people acting like this before. I find it totally idiotic the way people get flammed for what they choose to fly. Do you think that durring the real war pilots turned their nose up at the better planes and chose to fly the lower performing planes to prove their manliness? This is a game, I say fly what is FUN for you too fly and if this is the area of your life where you need to prove your manliness then get off the game and work on your life! It's amazing to me how the Internet makes some people act so rude to others. I doubt they would act like this in their dealings outside the safe atmosphere of the nternet connection.
-
A lot of enthusiasts of the past were replaced by gamers.
-
I'm sure this one will be popular and the result will be an inbox full of fan mail but here it is.
From Wikipedia:
Mk XVI (type 361)[edit]
A late Spitfire Mk XVIE with the teardrop canopy.This is TD248, currently flying at Duxford.
The Mk XVI was the same as the Mk IX in nearly all respects except for the engine, a Merlin 266. The Merlin 266 was the Merlin 66 and was built under licence in the USA by the Packard Motor Company. The "2" was added as a prefix in order to avoid confusion with the engines, as they required different tooling. All Mk XVI aircraft produced were of the Low-Altitude Fighter (LF) variety. This was not determined by the length of the wings (clipped wings were fitted to most LF Spitifres), but by the engine, which had been optimised for low-altitude operation. All production Mk XVIs had clipped wings for low altitude work and were fitted with the rear fuselage fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gal.[38] Many XVIs featured cut-down rear fuselages with "bubble" canopies. On these aircraft the rear fuselage tank capacity was limited to 66 gal.[38]
Because of a slightly taller intercooler and rearranged accessories on the Packard Merlins a new, bulged upper cowling was introduced and also appeared on late production IXs.[51]
Armament for most Mk XVIs consisted of 2 × 20 mm Hispano II cannon - each with 120 rpg - and 2 × .50 calibre Browning machine guns - each with 250 rpg. 1 × 500 lb (227 kg) bomb could be carried underneath the centre rack, and 1 × 250 lb (114 kg) bomb could be slung under each wing. Some production aircraft had rear fuselage fuel tanks in addition to the main tank which allowed it to fly approximately as far as the Spitfire Mk VIII. Problems with the licence-built engines limited introduction to front-line squadrons for several months. A total of 1,054 Mk XVIs were built by Castle Bromwich.[22]
I dont know if is correct or not but if a Spixteen has 75 more gallons of fuel it could be used to anger even more haters. It would dang near double the range. If this is correct this would be my wish.
No. The Spitfire Mk GAY needs no more help. Field mods are not allowed (or at least not used by HTC). If you need more range then learn how to manage the throttle, the Spitfires have a far greater range than most think if the throttle is managed. Try it. Get to 18k, drop throttle according to the chart on the knee board, and enjoy the smells of gayness even longer.
and FWIW- For someone who flings poo he sure does cry a lot when the poo comes flingin' back. You didn't think you be asking for trouble by calling those who may frown upon the unicorn suit plane that reeks of cheap perfume "haters"?
-
I like the idea of the extra tank, 16s would be falling from the sky like Ta152s... Tail first with no hope for recovery
-
No. The Spitfire Mk GAY needs no more help. Field mods are not allowed (or at least not used by HTC). If you need more range then learn how to manage the throttle, the Spitfires have a far greater range than most think if the throttle is managed. Try it. Get to 18k, drop throttle according to the chart on the knee board, and enjoy the smells of gayness even longer.
If what Wiki is saying is true it isn't a field mod, it is a factory fit, and if that is the case opinions would cease to matter at that point because High Tech doesn't design planes according to popular opinion other wise Spixteens would shoot banks to make everyone who is afraid of them happy and all the other (manly) planes would have Kleenex boxes so the Spixteen drivers wouldn't have to listen to your I incesent crying.
I didn't mean to offend by jokingly saying haters, I only said that because the quickest way of being accused of being limp wrested is to talk about flying a Spixteen. But I really couldn't care less at this point because it is a GAME!!
-
I like the idea of the extra tank, 16s would be falling from the sky like Ta152s... Tail first with no hope for recovery
Only when you hold the rudder full deflection in the wrong direction all the way down.
-
If what Wiki is saying is true it isn't a field mod, it is a factory fit, and if that is the case opinions would cease to matter at that point because High Tech doesn't design planes according to popular opinion other wise Spixteens would shoot banks to make everyone who is afraid of them happy and all the other (manly) planes would have Kleenex boxes so the Spixteen drivers wouldn't have to listen to your I incesent crying.
I didn't mean to offend by jokingly saying haters, I only said that because the quickest way of being accused of being limp wrested is to talk about flying a Spixteen. But I really couldn't care less at this point because it is a GAME!!
wiki??? tsk tsk tsk. You should know the rule regarding wiki. May I suggest diving in to one of the prime sources for Spitfires (prime sources = actual first print RAF/Supermarine Aviation Works nomenclature)? Or perhaps even one of the more highly regarded sources for Spitfires such as "Spitfire The History", by Morgan and Shacklady. http://www.amazon.com/Spitfire-History-Eric-B-Morgan/dp/0946219486 . I'm told it is one of the best sources on Spitfires, if not THEE best. Sadly, I do not have it yet. But I will, oh yes, I will.
But for now, I'd be willing to give HTC the benefit of the doubt in terms of correctness on the Spit 16, at least regarding hard data. The flight model though.... ;)
oh... and regarding "opinions", may I remind you that the HTC's "opinion" can trump a printed "fact" because of the obvious. You may carry on. :)
-
I do have it. If I get time I'll see if has any comments about this. I don't recall the rear tanks ever being standard though.
-
post deleted
-
No. The Spitfire Mk GAY needs no more help. Field mods are not allowed (or at least not used by HTC). If you need more range then learn how to manage the throttle, the Spitfires have a far greater range than most think if the throttle is managed. Try it. Get to 18k, drop throttle according to the chart on the knee board, and enjoy the smells of gayness even longer.
and FWIW- For someone who flings poo he sure does cry a lot when the poo comes flingin' back. You didn't think you be asking for trouble by calling those who may frown upon the unicorn suit plane that reeks of cheap perfume "haters"?
What makes you think they are field mods?
From Spitfire mk XVI's POH:
(http://oi39.tinypic.com/107q8vm.jpg)
BTW, regarding the "gay" part, you really sound like you just lost a 262 to a Spit16 or something.
-
So the appropriate area commander, Air Marshal Hitech, decided the rear fuel tank is not needed in the MA.
Until the AM issues new orders, we will do with what we have. A slipper tank.
-
wiki??? tsk tsk tsk. You should know the rule regarding wiki. May I suggest diving in to one of the prime sources for Spitfires (prime sources = actual first print RAF/Supermarine Aviation Works nomenclature)? Or perhaps even one of the more highly regarded sources for Spitfires such as "Spitfire The History", by Morgan and Shacklady. http://www.amazon.com/Spitfire-History-Eric-B-Morgan/dp/0946219486 . I'm told it is one of the best sources on Spitfires, if not THEE best. Sadly, I do not have it yet. But I will, oh yes, I will.
But for now, I'd be willing to give HTC the benefit of the doubt in terms of correctness on the Spit 16, at least regarding hard data. The flight model though.... ;)
oh... and regarding "opinions", may I remind you that the HTC's "opinion" can trump a printed "fact" because of the obvious. You may carry on. :)
Holy smoke they want a bunch of money for that book, I would sure love to read it though.
-
So the appropriate area commander, Air Marshal Hitech, decided the rear fuel tank is not needed in the MA.
Until the AM issues new orders, we will do with what we have. A slipper tank.
Isn't it the same for everything? If the CO doesn't want ponys using aux tanks they won't be using them.
-
Holy smoke they want a bunch of money for that book, I would sure love to read it though.
Quality costs a bit more. Compare and contrast: "Spitfire, The History", vs wiki. ;)
-
Here's the reason why we won't get the rear tank in the Spitfire. The CG will have to be completely reworked, and I suspect that will take a lot of time, then HTC would also have to change the type of damage the aircraft can take, adding another fuel leak location. It's just too much work. We might get it when HTC remodels the Spitfires (which is not going to be soon), but not before that.
I personally however welcome the added read fuel tank in Spit16s and 14s....mainly 14s. :D
-
Fly the SpitVIII. It has generous range.
Of course, it doesn't have clipped wings, so you'll just have to deal with it only be good, not stellar, in one area of fighter maneuverability. The horror! :D
-
I already do fly the VIII, infact I'm thinking that it will be my main ride from now on. It would just be nice to have the correct historical options for ALL aircraft. I think it is a little foggy on whether the XVI had the extra tankage and I dont know about the XIV.
-
I already do fly the VIII, infact I'm thinking that it will be my main ride from now on. It would just be nice to have the correct historical options for ALL aircraft. I think it is a little foggy on whether the XVI had the extra tankage and I dont know about the XIV.
XIV had extra tanks.
Regarding the XVI, if the POH says it had extra tanks so that should clarify that.
-
I already do fly the VIII, infact I'm thinking that it will be my main ride from now on. It would just be nice to have the correct historical options for ALL aircraft. I think it is a little foggy on whether the XVI had the extra tankage and I dont know about the XIV.
If the XVI had the rear tank, then so did the LF.Mk IX as they came off the same production line with the Mk only being determined when the engine, Merlin 66 for the LF.IX and Merlin 266 for the XVI, was installed.
OK, per Spitfire the History, there were tests with rear tanks, 74 gallons for the high back and 66 gallons for the low back versions.
That said, in the specifications on page 433 it describes the fuel thus:
Fuel. 100 octane; 150 for +25lb boost
Capacity fuselage (upper) 48 gals, lower 37. Total 85. Plus 45, 50, 90 and 170 gal o/ld tanks.
There is no mention of the rear tanks in the specifications.
-
There is no mention of the rear tanks in the specifications.
Perhaps they forgot about it...
Seriously, if publications made by Supermarine themselves say it had a rear than it must have had it, regardless of what some expensive aftermarket Spitfire book says.
-
Perhaps they forgot about it...
Seriously, if publications made by Supermarine themselves say it had a rear than it must have had it, regardless of what some expensive aftermarket Spitfire book says.
Given that the book was talking about experiments with the rear tanks on the prior two pages and has a cutaway diagram of the rear fuselage tanks on the prior page I hardly think you can reasonably claim that they forgot about them.
At this point the only supplied documentation supports the position that the production Mk XVIs did not have the rear tanks.
-
Given that the book was talking about experiments with the rear tanks on the prior two pages and has a cutaway diagram of the rear fuselage tanks on the prior page I hardly think you can reasonably claim that they forgot about them.
Okay, at first you said that there is no mention of the rear tanks.
At this point the only supplied documentation supports the position that the production Mk XVIs did not have the rear tanks.
Which documentation are you referring to?
-
Okay, at first you said that there is no mention of the rear tanks.
No, I said "OK, per Spitfire the History, there were tests with rear tanks, 74 gallons for the high back and 66 gallons for the low back versions."
Then I said the specifications for the production model didn't include the rear tanks.
Which documentation are you referring to?
Said book. If you want to claim that anything short of primary documentation doesn't count, fine. In that case we need some primary documentation that the rear tanks existed at all since wikipedia and Spitfire the History apparently don't meet your stringent requirements of "Assume they were there unless you can prove absolutely that they were not."
-
Said book. If you want to claim that anything short of primary documentation doesn't count, fine. In that case we need some primary documentation that the rear tanks existed at all since wikipedia and Spitfire the History apparently don't meet your stringent requirements of "Assume they were there unless you can prove absolutely that they were not."
Are you ignoring or just completely not seeing the fact that Spitfire's actual manual published by it's actual manufacturer says that it had rear tanks?
-
Are you ignoring or just completely not seeing the fact that Spitfire's actual manual published by it's actual manufacturer says that it had rear tanks?
I do not see that provided in this thread.
I am interested to see it though.
-
I do not see that provided in this thread.
I am interested to see it though.
I posted it on the previous page.
(http://oi39.tinypic.com/107q8vm.jpg)
If you like I can send you the whole document.
-
Ah. I am at work and most images are blocked.
-
Ah. I am at work and most images are blocked.
That explains a few things...
It says: "Later Mk. IX and all F. Mk. XVI aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages); they are fitted in the fuselage behind the cockpit."
-
That explains a few things...
It says: "Later Mk. IX and all F. Mk. XVI aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages); they are fitted in the fuselage behind the cockpit."
Yeah, that is what is diagrammed on page 432 of Spitfire the History. All of the text only mentions trials with the rear tanks though. Instability and needing the be drained before maneuvering, just as in the P-51, is mentioned.
-
Is this excerpt from the Spitfire manual taken from the 1946 version or from an earlier release?
The 1946 Spit XIV/XIX manual mentions an 31 gallon tank in the rear fuselage, it's usually been sealed-off and not to be used unless usage ordered for some special operations.
No such tank reported for the PR Mk. XIX
-
Is this excerpt from the Spitfire manual taken from the 1946 version or from an earlier release?
The 1946 Spit XIV/XIX manual mentions an 31 gallon tank in the rear fuselage, it's usually been sealed-off and not to be used unless usage ordered for some special operations.
No such tank reported for the PR Mk. XIX
1946
-
1946
Some of the tests with rear tanks referenced in Spitfire the History are dated post war as well.