Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on August 18, 2002, 03:13:59 PM
-
The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is a conglomerate of Spitfire Mk IXs. No single Spitfire Mk IX in reality had the combined options that the AH Spitfire Mk IX has. No Merlin 61 powered Spitfire Mk IX ever carried .50 cals or rockets, yet the AH Spitfire Mk IX is powered by a Merlin 61 and has those options.
There are two methods to fix this:
- Remove the option for the .50 calibre machine guns and the rockets.
This is the method I would prefer. It would also be interesting if the negative G engine cut out were added to the FM as quite a few Spitfire F.Mk IXs suffered from it. This would make AH's Spitfire Mk IX a good representation of a 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX and would lower the number of people using the Spitfire Mk IX in the MA.
- Redo the FM of the Spitfire Mk IX to match the numbers given by Merlin 66 or Merlin 70 powered Spitfire Mk IXs.
This would, particularly in the case of the Merlin 66 powered Spitfire LF.Mk IX, give AH a far more representative Spitfire Mk IX and would allow it to be justifiable kept out of 1942 scernarios. It would also make the Spitfire Mk IX more common in the MA than it is right now.
-
"It would also make the Spitfire Mk IX more common in the MA than it is right now."
Well if anything ever needed fixing in AH this certainly is it. :rolleyes:
-
GRUNHERZ,
Perhaps you noticed that it wasn't my favored option.
No, that'd actually take the ability to comprehend what somebody who is not blatantly pro-Luftwaffe says.:rolleyes: I included that statement to show the downside of that solution. Of course, you couldn't figure that out.
(The P-51D is more common than the Spitfire Mk IX according to AKDejaVu's stats)
-
Or take that gun and rocket away from our Spit IX, rename it Spitfire F IX, and add a new 1944 Spit LF IX.
-
I like Urchin's solution. However i would prefer if it had clipped wings. A bubble canopy would be cool too.:)
It's really quite ammusing that the RAF hasn't got it's 1943/44 mainstream fighter. For someone like me who loves RAF planes thats quite a shame.
-
Hmm.. I like Urchin's and thrila's idea.
Some of the aircraft types served for a long extended time, and were continuously modified - thus having large differences in the first and the last. It would be a good way to depict the historicity in AH. Of course, we wouldn't be able to do the same thing on all of AH aircraft, but few specific planes do come into mind:
Getting to see "Spitfire MkIX('42)" and "Spitfire MkIX('44)" wouldn't be too bad. Clipped wing, bubble canopy Spit9!
Typhoons, too. I recall hearing that the Typhies we have are the 1944 standard, which corrected most of its design flaws and weaknesses. If that is true, getting the "Typhoon IB('42)" and "Typhoon IB('44)" would also be good.
.. and of course(hehehe..), the same treatment for the Bf109G-6. A "Bf109G-6('43)" without Galland Haube and the Erla Haube.. and maybe a "Bf109G-6('44)" with the AS engines? (or keep the G-6 and put in the G-14?? )
...
Hehe sorry I used the thread to insert my own personal request. But anyway, as I said, I think Urchin/thrila idea is good. But of course, it'd be way way low on priority even if HTC agrees on the general direction.... :(
-
I agree with urchin as well
also give the lw a later model g6 or g14
See how difficult it would be to put an rps together for ah.
Also for the mission theater. I still remeber the typh replacing the beufighter in the North Africa event. Thank god there was no dt for the typh then.
we need the correct planes for the correct time frames or the beetching will be unbearable.
-
I didn't suggest adding another Spitfire because of how mocked and unpopular that idea is.
A clipped wing Spitfire LF.Mk IX might be just the trick. It wouldn't turn as well and it'd be a dog at high altitude, but it would roll better. If the most modern non-perked Spit suffered a significant loss of turn performance that might cause a more balanced usage of the various Spitfires.
I also agree that a Bf109G-6 with MW50 or a Bf109G-14 would be a good addition.
EDIT:
Kweassa,
The Spitfires could simply be labeled "Spitfire F.Mk IX" for the 1942 Spit and "Spitfire LF.Mk IX" for the 1943 Spitfire.
The Bf109s could could be labeled "Bf109G-6" for the 1943 G-6 and "Bf109G-6/UT" for the 1944 G-6. Or simply add the Bf109G-14 for the intrim 109 between the G-6 and G-10, though that would confuse many players into picking the G-14 as the top 109.
The Typhoon wouldn't be significantly different. It'd have slightly worse visibility, but all the other problems were reliability issues and AH doesn't model those problems. I don't think there is enough of a difference to justify two Typhoons.
-
Karnak: (The P-51D is more common than the Spitfire Mk IX according to AKDejaVu's stats)
Unfair comparison because people are selecting a specific Spit for a particular job at hand. The Spit I, V, IX, XIV and Seafire are used almost twice as much as the P51B and P51D combined. Give us the P51H and maybe other P51 variants and you'll see the P51D useage diminish. But looking at one variant is a horrible way to take a census of useage in the MA.
Oh yeah, and one point in the data (one month) hardly makes a trend. Do your research and review AKDeja's stats going back for several months and crunch a few of the numbers. In the past, I've done such things and noted that there have been months where the Spitfire collection accounts for almost 20% of all fighter-fighter kills in the MA, based on AKDeja's stats from months past. I cannot comment on how accurate Deja's stats are, though.
-
It isn't unfair in the least. People select planes for individual 'jobs' all the tme.
As much as people hate to admit it, the Spit IX and Spit V ARE actually two different planes, with totally different capabilities.
Adding in a Spit LF IX, at least the clipped wing version that was by far the most common of the Spit IX series, would be like adding a different 109. You aren't going to try to tell me that the 109g-10 and the 109f-4 are the same plane too, are you?
It really is puzzling to me why people hate Spits so much. Can someone clear it up for me? I'll tell you what they look like from my point of view. If I am in any 190, they are going to die. Or at the very least, we are both going to live. If I am in a 109G, they are going to die, or at the very least we are both going to live. If I am in a 109F, there will usually be a pretty good fight. If I am in a 109E, there will usually be an even better fight.
The Spit IX (and to a lesser extent the V) are the 'newbie planes' of our MA. They turn well, have good firepower, climb well, and dive well. Their level speed absolutely sucks compared to every other common plane in the MA. If you are getting killed 1v1 against Spits, you are making some serious mistakes. I'd be more than happy to go to the DA with you and try to show you their weak points.
Granted, in a 1 vs many, a spit has a much better chance to get you than say, a 109 does. But, in that case... YOU still screwed up by getting yourself in that situation to begin with. And yes, I understand that with some of the early war planes it is a hard situation to avoid, and I sympathize with you- but our MA is not an early war arena. It is a mid-late war arena. At least in most of the early war planes you can FIGHT the spit, which beats getting BnZ'd by a P-51, LA-7, 109G-10, or 190D-9 any day.
-
You aren't going to try to tell me that the 109g-10 and the 109f-4 are the same plane too, are you?
Yes, it is the same plane, just a different variant. And in the MA, they'd both wear the same exact tag.. "109" so that they'd be indistinguishible.
As you add variants to a type, the useage then gets spread out among the variants thus diminishing the use of any single one. I would guarantee you, if we had more Pony variants, the use of the P51D would drop. Add another P38 or add the F6F-3 and the useage of those original types in AH will drop too. If we only had a Spit9 and Spit1, I also put forth the Spit9 useage would increase dramatically.
Anyway, as to the main topic. Anything to make the Spitfire more accurate I'd be for as well.
It really is puzzling to me why people hate Spits so much.
I don't really hate the Spitfire. I respect the aircraft historically. I just happen to disagree in regards to viewing the useage of aircraft and comparing useage and I stand firm on that ground. However, in the MA, the Spitfire strikes me as being the Pop Music of the Air...it'd be very nice to listen to another radio station at times. ;) I fly the F4U-1 mainly, I'd be interested in seeing if the F4U-1D useage dropped at all once that was introduced. However, it may prove impossible because of the factor of the swarm of new players to the MA.
-
... and a very own thread for why people hate Spitfires is here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47719&pagenumber=2). :D
-
MAD! all gone MAD!..
whats the matter they shoot your nik or la7 or p51ds down to much..
most people dont carry bombs or rocks on their spit9..
they use a plane more suited to the task..
-
Originally posted by Puke:
I would guarantee you, if we had more Pony variants, the use of the P51D would drop.
That's BS and you know it. The P-51B had essentially no effect on the P-51D's usage. The P-51A / A-36 will have even less. The P-51H would have virtually none due to being perked, just as the Spitfire Mk XIV has had virtually no effect on the usage of other Spitfires.
Why?
Because the reasons that people fly the P-51D will not be satisfied by any other P-51 except the P-51B, which has already been demonstrated to have no effect on P-51D usage.
Quite frankly, people who fly the P-51D have stronger "ride loyalty" than people who choose to fly any other aircraft. They don't want to fly a P-51, they want to fly a P-51D.
-
just as the Spitfire Mk XIV has had virtually no effect on the usage of other Spitfires
Sure it has. I would put forth that many people decide on flying a Spitfire first and only secondly decide on which variant. The more choices available, the less likely on particular variant will be used. I would be interested in the Spit numbers if all we had available was the Spitfire9.
Anyway, still. Go back a few months and review only Spit9 useage vs the P51D. Again, one month does not make a trend. I would suspect the P51D was used more this past month with the introduction of the high altitude pizza map and the bomber formations. I welcome change and a new King-Of-The-Hill in the MA doesn't worry me.
BTW, I personally would want to fly the P51B.
I hope we are only politely disagreeing. Cheers!
-
The only P-51 varient that I could see dropping the P-51D's usage off any would be the original P-51, with 4x20mm. And the 4 Hispanos would be the only reason any of them would switch.
Your comparison doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to be honest, with you saying that all of the Spitfire 'varients' get more use than both of the P-51 varients. Well, of course they get more use, there are more of them to pick. The Spit IX and the P-51D are about the same, usage wise. The Spit V is vastly more popular than the P-51B, and the Seafire doesn't really have a comparable P-51 type. The Spit I and Spit XIV see negligble use.
The reason that the Spit V enjoys such popularity is that it is indeed different than the Spit IX. It is slower, but it turns better. The P-51B is unpopular because it doesn't do anything better than the P-51D does. I think if the P-51B did something better than the P-51D, you'd see P-51B use increase and P-51D use decrease.
The P-51H would be perked heavily, if it were ever introduced, and it would not impact P-51 use hardly at all.
Oh, and about the 'trend' thing- the Spit IX's usage didn't go down significantly. The LA-7s did, in comparison to the other "Big 5". The people that fly the La-7 decided that the P-51D offered more advantages on the "Pizza Map" than the La-7 did, thus the numbers increase.
-
The Spit XIV gets what? 500? 750? sorties a month. That is compared to how many thousands of sorties per month that the Spitfire Mk IX gets? No, there was no noticable decline in Spitfire Mk IX usage when the Spitfire Mk XIV was added. That is what I mean by virtually no effect, and that's even assuming the players that flew the Spit XIV would have flown the Spit IX if the XIV weren't there.
No, the P-51D's usage will not be affected by more than 5% total by adding every other P-51.
I am also well aware of usage trends. The Spitfire Mk IX had been top dog since the nerfing of the N1K2, which had in turn been top dog as of the perking of the F4U-1C. The P-51D (a far, far more annoying aircraft to me) was top dog last month. How long can it hold it? I do not know, but we'll see.
I'm not angry here, just a friendly debate. Perhapse I shouldn't have used the "BS" though.
-
Put in a spit xvi with bubble canopy and merlin 266.
give it the Spitxvi icon to confuse americans as to what type it is..would lighten the load on the spit xiv... give it a perk cost of 8 or so. take the rockets and 50s away from our 1942 spit and give it normal carbs and cloth control surfaces...
-
Seems like we differ on this and neither understands the other's point of view. Anyway, it's been a fun convo and is letting me procrastinate from the work I brought home to do this weekend. I really do NOT want to work.
The Spit XIV gets what? 500? 750? sorties a month. That is compared to how many thousands of sorties per month that the Spitfire Mk IX gets?
It may have been a small impact, but it had an impact. It's a bad example because it's perked. Add another late-war variant Spit that wouldn't be perked and offers something above and beyond the other in a particular situation (but not in all situations or parameters) and you'll see an impact to a greater degree. (In certain situtions, one Spitfire is a better choice over another.) Similarly, the P-51H is a bad example and the P51 may be a case where there isn't a variant added that in fact takes away from useage. They just weren't around the number of years like the Spitfire and do not have near the number of variants. Yes, the P51H would be perked. Perks are a monkey-wrench in everything anyway. F4U-4 doesn't have a huge impact just as the Spit14 doesn't but those are issues outside of this convo. Unperk them and you'll see a difference. But for now, perks are a barrier to useage and we have to be careful when dealing with them in this discussion.
The P-51B is unpopular because it doesn't do anything better than the P-51D does. I think if the P-51B did something better than the P-51D, you'd see P-51B use increase and P-51D use decrease.
Urchin touches upon something which interestingly, I think he supports my position without seeing it. If a variant really doesn't offer anything better to the main type, there will be no diminished use from the original or superior version. But since the SpitV and Seafire do offer viable variants to the Spit9 in certain situations, those three will compete against each other for useage. I still contend that a player typically decides he'll fly a Spitfire first and the variant of Spitfire secondly. Given just one choice (or one choice and an offers-nothing-superior-for-the-situation choice), the useage would be much higher on that original type.
I just personally do not like to have variants of a basica plane-type to compete against each other when you talk useage in the arena. Especially when you compare it to a type that really has only one plane type to choose from (since it seems the P51B really isn't an alternative to the P51D and is probably mostly usefull to those who prefer the color green or for scenarios.)
I do apologize for taking this thread in a different direction. I didn't think my thinking would generate this kind of response. Karnak, I am with you and would prefer to see a proper Spitfire variant modeled. But I still disagree with how you compare numbers. Should I even bring up that I prefer to count USN as a different "country" to USAF when counting plane types modeled? LOL.
-
I fly the P51B 10x more than the 51D, due to the eny value. The only time I fly the 51D is when its the only option in missions.
-
The Spit XVI with clipped wings and bubble canopy IS the Mk XI (44)...bring it on!
-
Mmmmmmmmmm...... ......SpitXVI. SpitXVI would work, it would defo help stop confusion between the marks F and LF.
Clipped wings, bubble canopy and best of all.... unperked :D
-
Pongo,
Only Spitfire Mk Is, IIs and very early Vs had cloth control surfaces. The vast majority of Spitfire Mk Vs had metal control surfaces and all Spitfire Mk IXs and beyond had metal control surfaces.
The Spitfire Mk XIV's icon reads "SPIT14". A Spitfire Mk XVI with a "SPIT16" icon would not confuse matters in the least, and it would be far more useless as a perk plane than the Mk XIV is. It'd get gangbanged just as much, and have even less of a prayer of escaping.
Puke,
When I fly a Spitfire I don't say "A Spitfire flight sounds nice right now, which shall I use?" My thought pattern would be more like "A Spitfire Mk V flight sounds nice right now." I know damn well if I'm going to use a Mk I, V, IX or XIV because that totally changes the flight.
A Spitfire Mk I is a completely different animal than a Spitfire Mk IX. How you can consider them the same is beyond me. A Spitfire Mk XIV flight is even further away and then amplified by having a curse icon over it.
-
It is sort of a neat conversation.
The only point I disagree with is the lumping of all Spits into a "spit" category to determine what the most popular plane is. When the F4U-1C was getting 20% of the kills in the arena by itself, it was the F4U-1C that was doing it, not just all F4Us. The F4U-1D saw practically no use until the -1C was perked.
I actually think one of the reasons the Spit V sees as much use as it does is because the Spit IX and N1K2 are so popular. The Spit V out-turns both of them pretty handily. On the other hand, the Spit IX and N1K2 turn more evenly. So, if a guy flying a Spit IX or a N1K2 sees a "Spit" icon, he will be tempted to turn with the other plane. The guy in the "Spit" 5, will kick some butt :).
I think if the Spit IX's popularity declines, the Spit V's will also.
-
I know damn well if I'm going to use a Mk I, V, IX or XIV because that totally changes the flight.
Heh heh. So? I already understand that and that's part of my point.
A Spitfire is a Spitfire is a Spitfire. Add a bulge here or a lump there, it's still a Spitfire. Add a gun here and remove a gun there, it's still a Spitfire. Add some range or make it more maneuverable, it's still a Spitfire. Clip the wing or add some fuzzy dice to the rearview mirrors and it's still a Spitfire. Add a roman numeral here or there, it's STILL a Spitfire. In fact, barring the 14, they ALL wear the same tag in the arenas (including the Seafire, it wears "Spit!") and so when you are flying around and see all them "Spit" icons, you don't know what is what and so just from that visible standpoint, they are all the same. You compare just the Spit9 to an aircraft that has two variants and from Urchin's talk, really only one viable variant for selection. Unfair comparison. No matter if you think it's minor or major, the choice in viable variants (Sea, I, V, IX) has impact on which one will be used, but people are still flying a "Spitfire." In the real world, the Pony is about as popular as a Spitfire, maybe more so, I'm not surprised the Pony is an oft-used aircraft. But I guess it serves your purpose to say the Spitfire is not the most common aircraft in the arena by splitting hairs and just comparing one variant (Spit9) to an aircraft variant (P51D) that may not really have any valid alternative to its selection and thus the D is really the only choice. Fact is, Spitfire usage (the Spit Icon) overwhelms the other icons in the arena and it's refreshing to actually get to fight a P38 or 109 or F4U.
How does "Spitfire" usage compare to "Mustang" usage?
How does it compare to ALL the 109s?
How does it compare to ALL the 190s?
How does it compare to ALL the F4Us?
How does it compare to ALL the P38s? Wait, ooops. Only 1 P38. We really must do something about that.
;)
-
Puke,
There is no viable alternative to the P-51D. There is no version of the P-51 that HTC can add that will be a viable alternative to the P-51D. Picking a P-51A instead of a P-51D would be like picking a Spitfire Mk I instead of a Spitfire Mk IX. The fact that they are iconed the same is meaningless. The performance and gun package is so different as to make them entirely different aircraft. From a performance stand point the Spitfire Mk IX and N1K2 have far more in common than do the Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk I. Does that mean I should count N1K2s as Spitfires? Of course not.
Ignoring the version, Spitfires are the most popular aircraft in AH. This is unquestionable, but some icon has to be most common and its better that it is one with many versions than one with a single version. However, ignoring the version is silly and massively distorts things. A fight against a Spitfire Mk IX is quite different than a fight against a Spitfire Mk V. They are individual aircraft and have individual and distictive flight models. They are not the same.
Should the Spitfire Mk I, V and XIV be removed from AH, by no means will all those players switch to Spitfire Mk IXs. There are many Spitfire Mk V fliers that would switch to the Hurricane Mk IIc or A6M5b as those are closer in many ways to the Spitfire Mk V than is the Spitfire Mk IX.
-
a lot of Spit Is were had metal ailerons put on 'in the field', & i believe the negative G engine cut out was fixed in by the time the Spit V rolled out. The Spit Vcs in Malta were armed w/ 4 x 20mm, and frequently flew with only 2 x 20mm installed, to improve the climb rate. Both would be nice options...
-
Karnak,
There is no viable alternative to the P-51D.
I would expect someone who disdains the Mustang to say such a thing. In fact, my favorite Mustang is the P-51B. P-51D usage is lowered because I prefer to fly the P-51B over the P-51D. In fact, I plan on giving it much more stick time coming up thanks to our little discussion. I've been remiss in flying her for too long. ;) Add in a P-51A and maybe a cannon armed variant and I would conjecture that the P-51D usage would diminish. But the alternatives to the Mustang do not offer the benefits in varying flight regimes or tactical situations that the Spitfire variants offer. Defending a base, up a V or even a I but the Mustang offers no variant to select from for defending a base. Spitfire fans have a choice and each choice offers a valid benefit in a certain flight regime. I have a friend who flies Aces High and who is a Spitfire fan and if I understand him correctly, he's a fan of the Spitfire V in the game. I'm certain he'd be flying the IX if the V or other variants had never been introduced, and so that is one small example how adding variants can affect the use of another specific variant. And this is why I think the Mustang is a poor comparison to the Spit when discussing numbers because the Mustang really offers no alternative in the arena. Well, it does offer one that basically flies the same though maybe a few MPH's faster but has worse visibility and armament.
There are many Spitfire Mk V fliers that would switch to the Hurricane Mk IIc or A6M5b as those are closer in many ways to the Spitfire Mk V than is the Spitfire Mk IX.
Ahh, you just proved my point. You admit that only "many" would switch to another variant leaving some number of players who would fly the MkIX. Thus, you are in fact stating the SpitIX numbers would go up if the Spit variants were gone but one.
From a performance stand point the Spitfire Mk IX and N1K2 have far more in common than do the Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk I. Does that mean I should count N1K2s as Spitfires?
Now you are getting absurd. I can do that too. Since the P51B flies very little different than the P51D, should we then combine their scores? That would mean the Pony now has the highest fighter-fighter number of kills out of any aircraft in the MA. That would server your purpose. Or how about this...shall we separate the Spitfire IX flights out that fly with the different gun packages? :p
Basically, the N1K isn't named "Spitfire." It's as simple as that. A Spitfire is a Spitfire is a Spitfire. And they are everywhere.
:D
-
"Please fix the Spitfire Mk IX "
Punt
-
Puke - as far as i know there never were any cannon armed Mustangs, except possible a Ford Mustang towing a prop to a civil war reenactment. other than that, i think that there aren't as many P-51 vaiants because it was perfected at the D model. compared to that Supermarine $u>< .... MK XXIV my oscar .... get it right the 1st (or 4th) time around!!!
¦¬þ
-
I agree with straightening out our "hybrid" Spit IX !
I do disagree with the notion about the differences in pilot attitudes between the V and the IX. Most pilots select the V because they are trying to "out spitfire the spitfires". In other words the spitfire is a great plane with its primary attribute against other aircraft being sustained turn rates. But when one of the top two most common enemies is the exact same aircraft you fly, then it becomes a matter of skill, and not the matter of taking advantage of aircraft differences. Most Spit V pilots are people who use to fly the Spit IX who wanted an edge against other Spit IX's and N1K2's. The difference between the V and the IX (which you fly in the same basic style) is no where near the difference between the 109F4 and the 109G10 (which you fly totally differently).
Karnak, there is one Pony varient that I suspect would decrease P-51D usage in the arena, but the purists would have a coniption fit ! ;) The P-51A (or was the official designation still A-36? would have to check my books) with the x4 Hispano cannon, and the low altitude Allison engine would be very popular in my opinon. Only a couple of hundred made, but it was actually one of the earliest of the Ponies.
-
i never knew the Apache was armed that heavy - i figured, as a dive bomber it would have, at most 4 x 0.50...i guess i should verify my assumtions before making moronic posts
-
The version with the 4 20mm Hispanos was the "Mustang 1A". It was strictly British, and around 150 of them were made.
A P-51K would also be "viable" although I see no real need for it as it was virtually identical to the P-51D except didn't quite perform as good (propeller was a hair smaller). A P-51C with a bubble canopy and the -7 engine also might see a lot of MA usage. Heck, it's probably see a LOT of use. As stated before, the P-51H would make a great perk plane. Finally, the Mustang 1--without the cannons--would itself be a fairly good low-altitude fighter that would see some MA use.
Karnak probably feels that there's no substitute for the -51D because of people like me on the BBS. Rest assured, I am not representative of the average Pony driver :)
J_A_B
-
hmm the spits arnt very good in the first place getting rid of htere only strong point pther than turning will just make it easier for people who know how to kill to get rid of those annoying little devils. me i prefer the hurri2c or even the yak9u...205 is great as well
-
Actualy the Mustang 1A was taken into US stocks after Pearl and converted in to the A-36 Apache. It was used in italy till they ran out of sapirs and grounded em.
-
Vermillion,
Hmmm.
I fly the Spitfire Mk IX as a BnZ aircraft, keeping to verticle manuvers. If I'm turning horizontally in a Spitfire Mk IX it is because I screwed up.
I fly the Spitfire Mk V pretty much as most people expect, a straight turn fighter.
To me at least, they are totally different flying and fighting styles.
Most people probably use them exactly as you described.
-
Originally posted by whgates3
Puke - as far as i know there never were any cannon armed Mustangs, except possible a Ford Mustang towing a prop to a civil war reenactment. other than that, i think that there aren't as many P-51 vaiants because it was perfected at the D model. compared to that Supermarine $u>< .... MK XXIV my oscar .... get it right the 1st (or 4th) time around!!!
¦¬þ
One of the prototype pony Bs retained 4 hispano as well...mmmm
-
There were cannon armed mustang MkI-A's delivered to the UK, some sources say 150 some say 93, and they ordered a bunch more but I can't remember why the order was changed or cancelled .
found an image, looks like the yanks used them too .
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stofp51.jpg)
-
Just a note:
The A36 had 6 50cals as standard (500 built). The P51A standard armament was 4 50cals in the wings with the option of also loading the extra 2 50cals on either side of the engine (310 built). The P51 (no designator)was the variant with 20mm cannons (150 built). Also, the P51C didn't have a bubble canopy (unless you're referring to the field-fitted Malcolm hood); the only difference between the B and C was that the C model was manufactured at the Dallas plant.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
It is sort of a neat conversation.
......
I actually think one of the reasons the Spit V sees as much use as it does is because the Spit IX and N1K2 are so popular.
That's one of the reasons I've started flying the Spit V. The top 3 things shooting me down are Ostwinds, Spit IXs, and field guns. Not much I can do about Ostwinds and field guns except to stop ground attacks (can't...resist....mud-moving....missions) but I can fly a plane that can out-loop the Spit IX.
The other reason I swent to the Spit V was to relive the adventure of the Eagle Squadrons. :)
Now I'm getting plastered by La-7s, P-51Ds, and Typhoons diving down from above. Oh well. At least I'm having fun.
-
Actually its not a "hybrid" Spitfire IX. It "could" represent a H.F. IX with the Merlin 70 and the "E" wing armament. They did have H.F.s with the "standard" wingtip and tail, and the performance is very similar to the AH Spitfire IX.
I would like to see a L.F. IX as well, but the AH Spitfire is a "valid" type. Nobody said it was supposed to be a merlin 61 model to begin with. Its all conjecture as to the engine type, unless HTC has said what it was supposed to be. Have they?
About 400 H.F. IXs were built, some with the C wing and some with the E wing, merlin 70 and the large scoop under the nose, like the one we have has. It wasnt as fast as a L.F. at lower alts but it handled better at high alt. Specs are close to the AH model for speed and climb.
Regards.
-
Pyro said a long time ago the AH Spit IX is an F IX with Merlin 61.
The Spit HF IX would be up to 20mph faster, and have about 700ft min better climb rate than the AH Spit IX.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is a conglomerate of Spitfire Mk IXs. No single Spitfire Mk IX in reality had the combined options that the AH Spitfire Mk IX has. No Merlin 61 powered Spitfire Mk IX ever carried .50 cals or rockets, yet the AH Spitfire Mk IX is powered by a Merlin 61 and has those options.
I believe you are wrong.
The MK IX was an urgent version to counter the Fw 190. The union of a two-stage supercharged Merlin 61, 63 or 70 with the Spitfire Mk V airframe with strengthened engine mountings; LF, F or HF wings and B, C or E armament. The Mk IX E had two 20 mm Hispano cannons and two 12.7 mm (0.05 in) machine guns. 5,665 built.
The last time I looked, I don't remember the AH Spit IX having a loadout option of rockets.
-
Squire,
Pyro stated outright that the AH Spitfire Mk IX is powered by a Merlin 61. If it were powered by a Merlin 70 it would be about 10mph faster on the deck, have a better climb rate and be about 8mph faster at best altitude.
Many Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and HF.Mk IXs had the normal wings. It is a misconception that LF.Mk IXs were all clipped and HF.Mk IXs were all extended. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a Spitfire HF.Mk IX with extended wings.
SlapShot,
No Spitfire F.Mk IX (all Spitfire F.Mk IXs were powered by the Merlin 61 or 63, the Spitfire in AH has a Merlin 61) had an "e", or "universal", wing. All Spitfire F.Mk IXs had a "c" wing in which the armament is two 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon and four .303 calibre Browning machine guns. No Spitfire F.Mk IX could be armed with .50 calibre Browning machine guns. While Spitfire F.Mk IXs all carried two 20mm cannon and four .303s, Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Spitfire HF.Mk IXs could be found with either the two 20mm cannon and four .303s or with two 20mm cannon and two .50s.
You are in error about the way the F, HF and LF designations work. They have nothing to do with the wings. The F, HF and LF designations are determined by the version of Merlin engine in the aircraft. Merlin 61 or 63 means it is a Spitfire F.Mk IX. Merlin 66 means it is a Spitfire LF.Mk IX. Merlin 70 means it is a Spitfire HF.Mk IX.
No Spitfire F.Mk IX was ever powered by a Merlin 70. Those came later with the introduction of the Spitfire HF.Mk IX, which entered service after the Merlin 66 powered Spitfire LF.Mk IX.
(Yes, the AH Spitfire Mk IX can carry two rockets.)
Roughly 300 Spitfire F.Mk IXs (like we have in AH, minus the .50 cals and rockets) were built. A little more than 1,000 Merlin 70 powered Spitfire HF.Mk IXs were built and more than 3,000 Merlin 66 powered Spitfire LF.Mk IXs were built.
The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is the least representative of all Spitfire Mk IXs, and by a full order of magnitude in comparison with the Spitfire LF.Mk IX.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
It would also be interesting if the negative G engine cut out were added to the FM as quite a few Spitfire F.Mk IXs suffered from it. This would make AH's Spitfire Mk IX a good representation of a 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX and would lower the number of people using the Spitfire Mk IX in the MA.
Since the Spit IX a/c were powered by Merlin 60/70 series engines, they did not suffer from neg-G cut-out . Beginning with the Mk 24 engines, the neg-G fix was installed on the Merlins.
Rokkit, the Spit XI was a PR a/c with a big chin nose for extra oil and carried no weapons. Did you mis-type the I and X?
-
MiloMorai,
The info I have says that up to the Merlin 63 or 66 not all Spitfires recieved the fix. Some of the Spitfire F.Mk IXs suffered from neg G cutout.
The only reason to add that to the AH Spitfire Mk IX would be to weaken it so as to push people to fly other things.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
MiloMorai,
The info I have says that up to the Merlin 63 or 66 not all Spitfires recieved the fix. Some of the Spitfire F.Mk IXs suffered from neg G cutout.
The only reason to add that to the AH Spitfire Mk IX would be to weaken it so as to push people to fly other things.
For the second part, understandable.:
For the first part, are you confusing with the Bendix type injection carb? In fact, the neg-G fix (special washer and a revized needle valve) was retro fitted to the early Merlins. Now, is no big deal but would like to see some proof.
cheers
-
http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
One of the great problems as discerned by pilots was the tendency for the carburetted engine to cut out under negative 'g'. Luftwaffe pilots learned to escape by simply pushing the nose of their aircraft down into a dive, as their fuel- injected engines did not cut out under these circumstances. By 1941 Miss Tilly Shilling in Farnborough had developed a partial cure for the problem. A diaphragm across the float chambers with a calibrated hole allowed negative 'g' manouvres, and was fitted as standard from March 1941. Sustained zero 'g' manouvres were not sorted out until somewhat later. In 1942 an anti-g version of the SU carburetor was fitted to single and two-stage Merlins. 1943 saw the introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at 5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger and was fitted to the Merlins 66, 70, 76, 77, and 85. The final development was the SU injection carburetor which injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a fuction of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, which was fitted to the 100 series Merlins.
-
Originally posted by Rokkit
The Spit XVI with clipped wings and bubble canopy IS the Mk XVI (44)...bring it on!
Nice post once again Rokkit. And if HTC wants to model that one, Northolt Wing can provide some detail photos. :)
(http://www.raf303.org/ramzey/cracow/PAM8.jpg)
-
Have to agree with Rokkit here. The LF Mk XVI would just about close the circle on the Spit marks, and also give a part-US spit as the Merlin in this version is a Packard built one.
Wonder if it would get mistaken for a SPIT14 if tagged SPIT16?
palef
-
Spit16 tag?! hell, give it the generic "spit" tag.:)
-
Just to clarify on the revised bubble canopy on the XVI. This wasn't seen in service until late March, early April 1945. It was also fitted to some IXs and XIVs. It was not in use in 1944. The XVI's were the same high profile back of the IX in 44. Clipped E-wings with hard points for bombs or rockets on the wings and under the belly for a drop tank or bomb. Merlin 266 engines rated for low alt work.
Suited best for low alt and ground attack work, or at least used that way.
Definately a different Spit then the Merlin 61 engined C winged versions of 42-43. By the end the IX and the XVI were basically the same and being used for the same purpose as the targets in the air had all but dried up for them.
I had a chance to talk to a Spit IX driver who was shot down and made a POW while dive bombing German Sub pens with 500 pound bombs. He was still mad about it 50 years later. His point being they didn't know what else to do with them so they sent them out to bomb the sub pens with the 500 pounders just bouncing off, just to keep the pilots busy.
Dan
-
Those Spits also did a hell of a lot of close air support and interdiction work.
Here's a typical 2TAF Spit XVI from 44-45, from 308 Sqn:
http://www.raf303.org/308/photos/spitxvi.jpg
And some logbook pages from one of the 308 Sqn pilots. Check out the sortie rate (high) and duration (short). Pretty good bomb trucking service they had set up. :)
http://www.raf303.org/308/photos/JMierzejewski-Logbook-Oct44.jpg
http://www.raf303.org/308/photos/JMierzejewski-LogBook-Final%20Combat%20Flight.jpg