Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: funkedup on June 05, 2002, 01:28:30 PM
-
Lately we have seen in the game (and seen discussed on the board) some planes which served only with one squadron or only one flight in a squadron. How about some of the famous Spitfires of this sort?
Spitfire Mk. VIII with +25 boost
360+ mph on the deck and 5580 fpm climb rate.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html
Spitfire LF IX with +25 boost
350+ mph on the deck and 5740(!!!) fpm climb rate.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
Spitfire 21 - 450 mph and 4 Hispanos. Very similar in performance and appearance to the Mk. XIV, so it wouldn't be much work for HTC. Just add some HP and some Hizookas.
Perks of course, but let's have 'em!
-
zzzzzzzzz
-
Funked, that's cruel: you just gave a bunch of kiddies tummy aches ;)
I'd be happy to just see an ordinary, run-of-the mill, plain jane Merlin 66 engined Spit modeled by a sim someday. I just don't get it.
I don't think that LF IXs running at +25 lbs boost fits your characterization as rare however. I've delved into the subject and they were rather common.
Here's (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9-150.jpg)an interesting document dated May 1, 1944 showing a glimpse into the state of affairs at that time, with regards to +25 lbs boost on Spit LF IXs. What's interesting to me, among other things, is the clearance and operational use of +25 lbs boost prior to the V-1 problem.
-
We need a SeafireIII. If we dont get it, Im going to hold my breath.
Regards.
-
How about a Seafire XV to match all the other 1944 CV aircraft.
-
Wow MW, he's sending that memo out to 6 different Groups. Looks like it might be time for +25 as a standard option in the Mk. IX.
I agree with you that a standard LF IX would be nice. By far the most common Mk. IX and most common Spitfire after 1943.
-
Hristo wrote
zzzzzzzzz
I don't see how this is any less interesting than endless discussions on GM and MW equipped Ta152s, 190s and 109s.
Certainly they were a lot more LF. Mk. IXs with +25lbs boost in service than Ta152s.
I'd also love to see an LF. Mk. IX in the game; and a higher boosted version as a perk.
-
I bet Hristo is not bored by the topic. I think he is just indicating that my uber Spitfires don't scare him. :)
-
Show me the Shoki!!!
-
Now thems are some Spitfires!
-
Spitfire Mks VIII and IX had the Merlin 66. The Spitfire XVI had the packard built version; the 266. Taken together that's about 7,600 aircraft so configured (Merlin 61 and 70s excluded from this calculation). That would make this class of Spitfire the most numerous and most representative type that saw service in WWII. They equipped more squadrons and flew more sorties than all the other Spits. The Spit I may have been the most famous given its reputation from the BoB, but in my opinion, the Merlin 66 engined Spits are the definitive Spitfire of WWII. Can someone please explain to me why such an important and common aircraft is excluded from this sim? Gameplay, lack of data, _______????
p.s. I realize this isn't quite on topic funked ;) I understand you're asking for the souped up jobs. Its not that I disagree with ya, but that gets into gameplay issues with perks, game balance and such, which isn't my thing.
-
Bring on the lil bastards! I can't wait to transition to the spitfires, I'm done with the jug.
-
Now you see this is where perks points can come into play.
Rather than create a new plane... simply select and exsiting plane and purchase the accessories..
-
Just did a little study on the Spitfire data I have vs the AH performance.
It looks like AH's Spitfires are slower than the ones I read about (Spit I, Spit IX, Spit XIV), and with poorer climbrate (at least spit XIV). So, a bit Porked. Spit I's get outrun by 110's, and Spit XIV climbs less on 25% fuel than fully loaded in tests in ww2.
Spit XIV also turns significally worse than the IX, unlike what reports state.
I think there is a gameplay reason why we don't get the uber Spits. They are simply too good. AH would be flooded with Spits and Spits again. Any newbie would be a serious threat in his uberboos Hizooka Spit. That monster plane would outgun, outturn, outroll and outclimb the dreaded N1k2 for instance.
It is not fair, but still, for this is a game right? Aces High or Spitfires High?
However the Perk system could be used here with some sense, the Perks are just generally a bit to high now.
Bring them in!
-
I don't see how this is any less interesting than endless discussions on GM and MW equipped Ta152s, 190s and 109s.
Certainly they were a lot more LF. Mk. IXs with +25lbs boost in service than Ta152s.
Then again, ALL Ta152 H1's (the one we have) had both MW50 and GM1 boost. The 190 A8 version we have had MW50, the Dora had it too aswell as the A5, but why would we get this?
By this I don't mean to oppose more spits in AH. Bring em on, the Mk21 could be fun, aswell as the Mk VIII, heard that many pilots said the MkVIII was the best of the spits.
-
Since the XIV is there I certainly dont see a VIII or an LF IX as unbalancing. This varient should be added at some point, and the above posts are correct, the LF IX and LF rated VIIIs were the most common wartime Spitfire, of all the types to enter service. The LF IX was the standard Spitfire in 2 ATAF squadrons (RAF, RCAF, Free Poles, ect) by the time of the Normandy landings. The VIII being widely used in India/Burma and the Med by this date.
-
Didn't the RAF use anything else comparable to Spitfires?
-
The problem with perked uber planes is that it can be rather discouraging for new pilots/players that are new to the game and lack the points to get the same planes as more experience pilots. Besides, experienced pilots already have a familiarity with the game's software and flight models so they already have an edge. Why compound the inequity by allowing them access to superior aircraft as well?
Besides, we already have plenty of Spitfires. How about some Japanese and French aircraft instead?
-
Gofaster, as MW points out, we still don't have the most common Spits of the war.
Wilbus:
The 190 A8 version we have had MW50, the Dora had it too aswell as the A5, but why would we get this?
A-8 and A-5 did not use MW 50. You are thinking of GM-1.
-
who wants to see a photo of a spit IX with 6 hispano?
hmm i'd better not...
SKurj
-
I belive the Spitfire V (and getting more detailed, the Vb) was the most common of the Spitfires. Am I wrong?
Anyway, To make a proper full house of Spits, we need at least three, the VIII, the IXLF, and the 21, and maybe even more.
After all, the Spits of WW2 were more than 20.000, and were used into the Sixties if I remember right.
But again, for Aces High, an unperked access to the uber spits would really upset the game balance, - they are just so good aircraft. So, I say we'd have to perk them. The ENY and OBJ values will come into that too. I'd vote for a low perk with relatively low ENY value. Good to get kills in them, but not exactly the planes to sweep up perks.
IMHO the Spit XIV is way to expensive BTW.
-
Originally posted by Squire
We need a SeafireIII. If we dont get it, Im going to hold my breath.
Regards.
some call a doctor!
-
Ehhhhh Funked, sorry but you're very wrong there.
the 190 A4 and onward all used MW50 power boosting, the A8 had it in the AUX tank (the AUX tank could carry fuel instead as in AH). The 190 A's didn't use the GM1 as the GM1 is only used when the airplane flies ABOVE the engines maximum boost altitude, this is why the GM1 in the real life TA152 didn't kick in untill about 32-35k.
The MW50 was used BELLOW the maximum boost altitude. The 190 A's did not use GM1, they all (almost all after A4) used MW50 though, something we don't have in AH.
So, with a little chance of sounding rude... don't tell me what I am thinking of, I know my 190's.
-
LOL @ Wilbus
Whatever man.
Fortunately HT and Pyro know their stuff.
They'll file this alongside other BS like mass production of Fw 190A-9 and MK 103 on more than 5-6 190s. :)
If you don't want to trust me then ask Verm or Naudet or Niklas or Hohun.
-
Like I said, I know my 190's, obviously you don't.
-
Like I said, you should ask Verm or Naudet or Niklas or Hohun if you don't believe me.
I'm aware some books say that Fw 190A used MW 50. But based on primary sources, those books seem to be wrong. We've been over it on this board a few times, surprised you missed it.
I'll accept your apology in advance.
:D
-
Wow! The waffles just had to try and turn a pro-spit thread in to a LW conspiracy thread, eh?
-
Wilbus, I don't claim expertise on 190's but even with my limited knowledge its clear you have alot to learn about 190's.
Read this (http://pub47.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=1321.topic&start=1&stop=20) and learn a thing or two. I did.
Check this (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zzrpi) out as well.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Just did a little study on the Spitfire data I have vs the AH performance.
It looks like AH's Spitfires are slower than the ones I read about (Spit I, Spit IX, Spit XIV), and with poorer climbrate (at least spit XIV). So, a bit Porked. Spit I's get outrun by 110's, and Spit XIV climbs less on 25% fuel than fully loaded in tests in ww2.
Spit XIV also turns significally worse than the IX, unlike what reports state.
I think there is a gameplay reason why we don't get the uber Spits. They are simply too good. AH would be flooded with Spits and Spits again. Any newbie would be a serious threat in his uberboos Hizooka Spit. That monster plane would outgun, outturn, outroll and outclimb the dreaded N1k2 for instance.
It is not fair, but still, for this is a game right? Aces High or Spitfires High?
However the Perk system could be used here with some sense, the Perks are just generally a bit to high now.
Bring them in!
My whine-o-meter just started flashing ;)
-
Don't we have enough spitfire models? why not add planes that we don't have before adding more models of the same plane, especially when we already have 5 versions of it! And I definitly don't think they are "proked"... and if they are, I'd hate to see em un"porked" :)
Add a b25, and mitsu's Shoki :)
And of course that plane that I like allot... I will not mention the name of it at the moment cuz I think some1 might go crazy if I say it again lol...
But it looks like this :D :
-
Heheheeh MW it's funny to see some of my old scans popping up on that forum. ;)
But hey I don't "know my 190s". I guess I need to start reading "Cool Uberplanes of the Uberwaffe" by Hauptmann Nazilover instead of looking through archives to make copies of real test data and technical documents. Silly me!
Interesting to hear Oleg talking about MW 50 on the A-8 when the manual for the aircraft mentions three other boost systems but nothing about MW 50. Ah well it's just a game. :)
-
funkedup, AFAIK, MW50 equipped 190A had a small orange triangle behind the cockpit, there are several pictures of 190As featuring this triangle.
About GM1, I have the technical drawings of a 190A8 with a big GM-1 bottle instead of the "normal" fuel tank, as well as 190A8s without the third tank (this tank was easily removable at field).
Mw, the comment of Oleg in your link is:
"A-8 was the first 190s which had MW-50 engine boost in serieal production. Its why it faster".
But this thread is about Spits: perk them all :p
-
(http://www.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/ww2propaganda/cheshirecat-spitfire.jpg)
-
"Cool Uberplanes of the Uberwaffe" by Hauptmann Nazilover
You're obviously even more stupid then I've thought before.
-
funkedup, about manuals, my old PC motherboard has four manual revisions, my bios has two, my operating system has three, but my hardware is the same since first day.
About "Cool Uberplanes of the Uberwaffe" what about "Fantasy Uberplanes of the RAF in AH"? This is the case of our actual unidentified SpitIX. Lets suppose we had a 190 with the weapons of a 190A8R8, the weight of a 190A3 and the engine of a 190A9 and called "Fw190A"...
-
Originally posted by funkedup
"Cool Uberplanes of the Uberwaffe" by Hauptmann Nazilover
Ok funked, tell us how you really feel... :(
-
Funked, you'd be surprised where your research turns up, I certainly have been at times ;) Wilbus: Funked has been studying this stuff for a long time and knows more about 190s than most. Better if you don't take it so personal. We're all learning as we dig up more data. Its ok if we don't get it right all the time.
Mandoble: I read what Oleg wrote ;) I know better than to believe everything he writes, but its worth giving consideration to his opinions. I find butch2k to be the guy to listen to re: 190s.
Funked; intersting about the boost setting on that 190A3 tested by the Brits. Remember we used to discuss that many years ago, lol! :) My take is that the reason the engine ran rough is because the Brits didn't realize the engine couldn't take running at 1.42 ata. The Germans knew this which is why they limited it to 1.3ata; but the Brits didn't ;)
Here's (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zzufa) a thread on GM-1 on 190s.
A Spitfire thread never gets much traction until the LW types join in anyway ;) Have at it :)
-
"I'm unfortunately not authorized to post the data i have"
butch2k is the one that said he had confidential info about 190s, right? LOL!!!!!
Is curious that Oleg keep talking about the acceleration and speed of 190A8 using MW50 and comparing its marks to the 190A9 2100hp (190A9 fantasy plane??).
-
Wow mandoble, if I sent you a primary source document on condition you not paste it all over the web due to copyright concerns, what would you do?
Someone remind me never to send this guy any of my primary source material.
-
If funked is so good with 190's he should know that from the A4 and onward they could use MW50 boost.
The A4 was the first one that used it, FAR from all of the A4's though. More A5's used it and the A5 also tested the GM1 boosting although they had lots of problems with it and thus is was never really used operationaly untill later.
Not hard to find facts about this and it's not in one or two books written by some bad authors and published by a bad publisher. If ya refuse to read up on it I can't blaim you all for your lack of knowledge.
MW, as for your links, they are two disussions about it, much like we have here. I haven't read through them real good but for what I've read in the first link they only discuss the 190 A4 (mostly A4) engine problems, something I am well aware of already and yet again, is not hard to find info about.
-
Suit yourself Wilbus. That's unfortunate. I figured I was doing you a favor by putting up those links where some of the current thinking on the subjects that interest you are discussed. We are all free to draw our own conclusions about what we read. I will say this; if you really want to have a clear understanding of the performance and operations of aircraft you are interested in, you have to hit the archives and do some serious research.
-
Soon, we're gonna need an arena for spit drivers only!
I'm all for new planes, but enuf with the RAF stuff already. Perhaps we can add some PTO A/C before we add any more spits.
-
Damn,
I feel bad now: one post while irritated from reading another thread and I managed to set this thread up to be one hell of a flame-fest.
-
Sorry Mando and Wmaker, there are a lot of crap authors out there writing crap books on LW planes. They copy things from previous books that are completely wrong and don't look at primary sources. A lot of this feeds the BS myth of Luftwaffe superiority in WW2 and creates a whole class of misinformed LW fans that we have to deal with on these boards. I don't blame these fans for being wrong, it's the fault of the irresponsible authors. I find it offensive that these people make money from such poor work.
As far as the Spit 9 in AH, I have pointed out the problems to HTC many times. If they refuse to fix it, it's none of my business.
-
I know very well that there are crap authors Funked, and I have some books written (copied or whatever) by such crap authors. I also have some very very good ones and reliable and I do know, by FACT that from teh A4 and on MW 50 was suported, it's another thing that it wasn't used on all, (almost no A4 and quite a few A5's).
When someone is ignorant to laugh me in the face I get pissed off though, and when someone calls some authors (and me, I took that kind of personal) Nazi lover I get seriously pissed off, and if anyone at all should appologize, it's you for making such a stupid BS comment.
If you wanna learn some about 190's open your eyes and see and understand that MW50 was suported and used from the A4 and onwards but didn't get into service "for real" untill the A8.
You said before A-8 and A-5 did not use MW 50. You are thinking of GM-1.
. That proves your lack of knowledge about Fw 190's as Gm1 was TESTED (and ONLY tested) in the 190 A5 but couldn't be made to work as it should and was thus posponded until later, this too being fully worked out for the A8 and used, together with MW50 in the TA152 H-1.
To me it seems as if you haven't read much at all about 190's, specially not the less known version and thus you hardly seem to know what GM1 is at all.
As for spits, I can't challange you and almost anything you say I won't argue about (unless I look something else up in the Spitfire bible).
-
Also Funked, I do not in ANY WAY believe LW fighters are UBER or WERE UBER. I know a hell of alot more then that about airplanes.
The Dora, I consider, together with the P51 to be amongst the best, if not the 2 best piston engine fighter ever produced.
The 109 was FAR from Uber and already by 1942 outdated. The 190 A's kept being pretty good threwout the war but only bellow 20k, where most US fighters were or par with them.
Spitfire was a terrific airplane, as good as P51D and 190 D9 most likely although I don't consider it be be just as good.
So cut out your BS about some people (meaning me) think all LW planes were UBER, that's just another presumption (just as I presume you ment me) about something you know S*** about.
-
OK I apologize for the remarks that offended you. The thread getting hijacked and you dismissing my knowledge made me grumpy and I didn't handle it as well as I could have.
We are both guilty of spending more time talking about knowledge than actually attempting to prove our point with facts. I'm sorry I didn't turn the discussion in a better direction sooner.
FYI before I was in Northolt Wing I was in JG 5 and did a lot of research on Fw 190, specifically MW 50. I was trying to establish that it was used so I could get iEN to add it to the game. Jochen and Naudet and some other guys were doing a similar search. I ended up with about 20 books on the 190 and I think Jochen did the same.
Also in this search I ended up going to the USAF museum archives and copying one of their reports on the Fw 190. I'm the guy who scanned and put on the web the "F-TR-1102-ND" report which pops up from time to time.
Back on topic (err at least back on hijacked topic :) )
In all my searching I have never seen performance information for a Fw 190A with MW 50. Just vague claims of a 300 hp increase. No flight test data or mention of it in manuals for the airplane. German pilots never mention it being used. RAF And USAAF evaluated many Fw 190A and they never found any MW 50 system.
Here's what I've seen in books:
1. Some books say that all Fw 190A after the A-4 had MW 50.
2. Some other books say MW 50 was only on the Fw 190A-8 and was stored in the aft tank.
3. And a few other books say the tank on the A-8 had GM-1, not MW 50.
Which story to believe?
Gatt sent me a translated manual for the Fw 190A-8 and it says the tank was used for fuel or GM-1. And it includes information (and performance curves) for supplemental fuel injection, overboost, and GM-1, but nothing at all about MW 50. So that's how I formed my opinion.
(PS I know quite well about GM-1 testing on the Fw 190A-5 and I guessed that you might have confused it with MW 50.)
-
So cut out your BS about some people (meaning me) think all LW planes were UBER, that's just another presumption (just as I presume you ment me) about something you know S*** about.
I didn't actually mean to infer that about you personally. Sorry. :(
-
Rgr funked, guess I'll go out and do even more research then, not sure I've seen the chart you're talking about nor do I have the luxury to go and visit any achives since I live in Sweden.
My applogize for my harsh language aswell, I got pretty pissed off when (it seemed directed to me) being called a nazi lover as so many other people have done just because you don't agree on a LW plane.
My Applogize! (however that is spelled) and thanks for (robarly) correcting me ;)
!
-
Well I could be wrong.
That's usually how I learn. I start out being wrong and making an bellybutton of myself, then somebody shows me the correct answer. :)
I don't know if those authors actually love Nazis but I think a lot of them know that some of the fantasy stuff sells books. Of course this is true of guys writing about Allied stuff too. Martin Caidin comes to mind. :)
-
Rgr that funked, there are some highly believable though (Alfred Price very very good, doens't mention MW50 much though).
I only try and go with books from respected publishers ("SHIFFER" EXELENT PUBLISHER).
And yeah, you notice (bought a 109 book a while ago) that many authors have the wrong things printed down in their books, sometimes VERY wrong, it's sad really.
That's usually how I learn. I start out being wrong and making an bellybutton of myself, then somebody shows me the correct answer.
I feel struck! :D
Anyway, any information you have about the 190 I'd love to have and know about :)
Btw, do you happen to know where I can write (in the US) to get the hold of war time reports and such, I was told in anotehr thread but forgot where.
OH!! PS. Bring the Spitfire Mk 8 to AH :D
-
I feel struck!
I dunno, look what Butch posted in the other thread. I think I might be an bellybutton once again. :D
-
I think Widewing is the guy to ask about US archives (National Archives and Smithsonian Archives).
MW knows well how to get stuff from the UK archives (PRO).
Post a thread asking those guys for info and I'm sure they can give you contact info.
I went to the USAF Museum archives but they have been closed since the archivist retired. It seems they haven't found a replacement for him or they can't afford one. Their web page is here: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/mua.htm
-
I'll be their achivest for some bred and water, enough to keep me alive :D
-
...not sure calling a spit "uber" is appropriate...maybe "smashing" or "topping" would be more fitting.
Also, i think, as a perk, one should be able to fly as Dougls Bader, which would give you the ability to pull a few extra Gs before blackout (a definite PRO), but it would be harder to bail out (W/C Bader lost a leg - for the 3rd time - doing so. this could be considered a CON). Also, if you're Bader you should be able to score perks by frightening 109s.
-
I clean my toilet with spits.. Especially 14's ;)
-
The whole MW-50 use on 190s seems clear as mud. Now on the other hand the use of 150 Octane fuel, designed also to increase boost limits at low altitudes, is quite alot clearer. It can be shown to have been used operationally on LFIXs and Spit XIVs and the performance data is available. The documentation for operational use and performance using 150 Octane fuel in Spit IXs can be found in this thread in fact. I don't see how anyone could argue for MW-50 in 190s and be against 150 Octane in the Spits. Is that a "gaming" thing? "Perk" high boost on Spits but not MW-50 equipped 190s? Huh?
-
The reason high boost spits may (and ONLY MAY) need to be perked is that they might be overused. A fast 190 will never be overused as you see with the Dora, it's fast but harder to fly and get kills in then most planes (not meaning harder to stay alive in).
But a spitfire with a 370mph speed at the deck would outclass most other things, it would be an LA7 with a turnrate of a Spitfire Mk9 (or near).
Only reason to perk one of those would be overuse, IMO the spit 14, nor the TA152 should be perked in the MA.
-
You are right Wilbus.
One thing about the Perks though. Remember how what used to be the over-usage of the CHOG dropped by putting a humble 5 perk points price tag on it? I think this should be used a bit more, and could prove useful to bring in the whole spectrum of Spits without filling the whole arena with uber-Spits.
And maybe the N1K2? La7? 5 Perks?:confused: