Author Topic: Spitfires 6, 7, and 8 history (help) (Read 600 times)

1K3 · « **on:** June 06, 2005, 09:15:22 AM »

btw, can someone shed some light on the history of Spitfires 6, 7, and 8? Most of us regular guys believe that only the spit 9 saw mid war to late war service and anything from spits 6, 7, and 8 are just experiment planes that we believe did not see service.

Suave · « **Reply #1 on:** June 06, 2005, 10:03:10 AM »

The MKVIII was actually a more modern fighter than the mkix. From what I know, the mkix was a stop gap model.

Suave · « **Reply #2 on:** June 06, 2005, 10:03:48 AM »

http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/spitfire.html

Google it broseph.

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** June 06, 2005, 10:17:58 AM »

The Mk VI I am not sure of and would have to look up in my books, but as I am at work I cannot.

The Mk VII was a limited production model of high alt interceptors intended to deal with the very high altitude bombers Germany was thought to be producing in quantity. As this threat never materialized only about 120 were built.

The Spitfire Mk VIII was intended to be the definitive Merlin Spitfire prior to switching over to the Spitfire Mk XX series powered by Griffon engines. The introduction of the Fw190 by the Germans forced the mating of a 60 series Merlin to a Mk V airframe in the form of the Mk IX, which was a stopgap until the Mk VIII could enter production. In actual practice more Mk IXs were built, but over 1,600 Mk VIIIs were built. The Mk VIII airframe provided the basis of the stopgap Griffon engined Spitfire Mk XIV and Mk XVIII until the rewinged Spitfire F.21 entered production. Like with the Mk VIII and Mk IX, the stop gap Mk XIV was produced in larger quantities than the definitive Griffon Spitfire.

Suave · « **Reply #4 on:** June 06, 2005, 10:23:36 AM »

It would be nice if AH had a bubble canopy spitfire, even if it's a mkxvi.

I think alot of people were dissapointed in the version of the mk14 that we got.

wipass · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2005, 10:29:44 AM »

We have the latest version of the Mark V from late 1943, a 1943 Mark IX and a Mark XIV from 1943 too.

Strange or what

wipass

Karnak · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2005, 10:34:27 AM »

The bubble canopy Spitfires didn't enter service until March, 1945. It is quite reasonable to have razor backs on all Spitfires added to AH as they are what is representative of WWII service Spits.

The Mk V we have is from late '42, the Mk IX from mid '42 and the Mk XIV from Jan. '44.

Kev367th · « **Reply #7 on:** June 06, 2005, 01:48:38 PM »

Mk VI - High alt interceptor
MkVII - As above but pressurized cockpit which incidently was bolted on after the pilot got in!!!! Commonly fitted with extended wingtips up until D-Day.
MkVIII - One that confuses most. The MkVIII came AFTER the Mk IX. The IX was only supposed to be a temporary solution to the 190 when they first appeared, and was created by bolitng a more power full engine to a Mk V airframe.
The Mk VIII on the other had an airframe designed for a more powerful engine plus a few other refinements.

Wipass - Beg to differ
Our Mk V is late 1942.
Our Mk IX is a F IX 1942 one, very badly modelled.
Our Mk XIV is from 1944.

No idea where you got 1943 from, that would be the era of the MkVIII, LF IX and XII.

Thats why I would like some free 1943/44 Spits when the remodel occurs.

1K3 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:03:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th

Our Mk IX is a F IX 1942 one, very badly modelled.

What's wrong with our Spitfire 9 now?

Back then every "plane experts" says its model is based on a UFO:D and im 1000% sure that the spit 9 now is correct according to the "plane experts"

Kev367th · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:10:22 PM »

1) It is alleged to represent one of least made variations of the IX, namely the F IX.
2) It is an amalgamation of few different IX's.

Basically compared to a true representation of the most widely made IX, the LF IXe (1943), it's a dog.

Same goes for the Seafire, the IIc had the lowest production run of any Seafire, the most produced was the Seafire III, almost 4-5 times as many III's as IIc's. Yet we have the IIc.

As I have stated numerous times lately, the RAF frontline fighter planeset is nowhere representative.
There is nothing from 1943 and only 2 (both perked) from 1944.

So the question is, what is HT so afraid of we don't have free 1943/44 RAF fighters?
Unless of course it's a grudging admission the the 1944 RAF fighters were so superior to any other prop plane at the time that they would unbalance the arena.

Pooface · « **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:56:11 PM »

YAYYY!!!

makes me proud to be a brit

he right tho. actually, almost all our spits are 'wrong'. small errors that only those with big books understand. the shape of our V's ans seafs are wrong, and we seem to have very uncommon versions of each spit, strange versions of the marks i mean, like a weird V, IIc, IX, X!V, etc.

not in anyway to undermine what HT is doing, because he's done it very well, but i think the spit update will be time consuming, because these major problems will take time to fix

Pooface · « **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:59:19 PM »

sorry, not really answering question. the internet isnt actually to helpful for this. you'd be better to buy a book of amazon, theyre only like 5 pounds($9), and have HUGE amounts of detail and good pics

good one to look at is 'spitfire' by robert jackson

hope that helps:aok

Kev367th · « **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2005, 03:24:38 PM »

To be fair Pooface I think we have what we have is because at the start AH was in direct competition with Warbirds.
I believe the planesets were almost if not identical.

Well now that Warbirds is effectively R.I.P. it's a good time to sort out the problems during the remodel, give us truly representative Spits/Seafires, and fill out the 43/44 timeslots.

wipass · « **Reply #13 on:** June 07, 2005, 03:26:12 AM »

Kev,

I was trying to equate the performance of our spits with the in service dates of comparable performance real world spits.

Using that I came to 1943, all be it in a non scientific way,

wipass

Kev367th · « **Reply #14 on:** June 07, 2005, 04:10:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by wipass
Kev,

I was trying to equate the performance of our spits with the in service dates of comparable performance real world spits.

Using that I came to 1943, all be it in a non scientific way,

wipass

Ah I see.
But the Spit V we have IS a late 1942 Spit V. (Merlin 50?)
The Spit IX we have has no real equal real world version, closest is the F XI, also 1942.

To compare our IX with a 1943 LF IX (most common), doesn't work.

Can see where your trying to come from though, but it doesn't work.

Have a wee peek here
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

Even more intesting here, check the LF IX with 25lb boost against the Tiffy!
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66_18_25.jpg
March 1944 25lbs boost authorised, sqns started to change over 4 weeks later.
Nov 1944 Grade 150 fuel authorised for use by all Spits (IX, XIV and XVI) of 2nd T.A.F.