Spitfire IX overmodeled??

[VWE]

I'll take that extra 10 mph. I have concluded that HTC heavily favors the allied side in all modelling. None of this info comes as a surprise.

The only thing HT hates more than LW planes are Silly Spitty drivers... go waste your perks on a Spit14 and tell me he loves ya!

[Angus]

Somewhat true.
We do not have the finest air-to-air 190's, and we do absolutely not have the finest air-to-air Spits.
The only post 1942 Spit we have is perked.
However, this is probably a well thought gameplay issue. I am pretty sure that F4UDOA does not want an overboosted clipped spit on his F4U's tail  

[Karnak]

Saburo Sakai fully agreed with F4UDOA's assesment of the importantance of fuel endurance.  He stated that (I paraphrase here) "he felt sorry for the German pilot having to fight over England with only a few minutes of fuel available and that the removal of that concern, had they been flying A6M2s, would have allowed them to focus much more effectively on combat"

[Reaper5]

This is just a suggestion, but if HT seems to favor the allied planes in modeling, perhaps it is because during the war the axis (especially the Germans) tended to have superior equipment to the allies, which the allies countered with being able to produce larger numbers of equipment.  In Aces High, where there is no numbers advantage, modeling the axis planes and allied planes according to their real-life specifications would probably tip the favor heavily to axis planes.

Just a thought, please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong if I am.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Reaper5
This is just a suggestion, but if HT seems to favor the allied planes in modeling, perhaps it is because during the war the axis (especially the Germans) tended to have superior equipment to the allies, which the allies countered with being able to produce larger numbers of equipment.  In Aces High, where there is no numbers advantage, modeling the axis planes and allied planes according to their real-life specifications would probably tip the favor heavily to axis planes.

Just a thought, please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong if I am.

HT overmodels the planes that each of us don't like

The LW guys say it's the Allied stuff overmodeled.  The Allied fans say it's the LW or Japanese stuff overmodeled, etc etc.

Song's been sung forever, regardless of the flight sim

Dan/Slack

[hogenbor]

Hmmm, I wonder how the LW would have done if they would have had A6M2's instead of Bf-109E's? No endurance problems and much more effective escorts indeed, meaning less bombers lost.

However, wouldn't be the Zero be at a disadvantage at high altitude? And what about overall performance? I don't want to look up the numbers but I guess the A6M2 would be slightly superior in speed to the Hurri I and inferior to the Spit I.  Hurri and Spit probably significantly faster in the dive and better control at speed, however marginal it was in these planes too. But the Zero had no problems with negative G's. On the other hand Zero not well protected and vulnerable, even to .303's. Maneuverability would be interesting but the Zero will probably have the edge.

Anyone?

[Angus]

The Zero would definately have suffered as an  escort fighter if facing the Spitfires of the same time. Once that the Spit drivers would have put their tactics together that is. Why?
1. Even a .303 will be sufficient to down it. No protected fuel tanks.
2. The model in British use at the same time as the a6m2 would have been the Spitfire Mk V, even the overboosted variants, and with Spit IX just around the corner. Cannons there at will.
3. The Spit has a much better alt performance.
4. The Spits had a much better roll rate, especially at high speeds.
5. The Spit would have been very much faster

However in the case of Spit I and Hurry I it's a tough bet. We see that in the Burma sceario sometimes, - Hurry I and a6m match up closely

And Reaper: I do not agree on HTC favouring the allies regarding plane modelling. Neither side really. But what we can say is that we do NOT have good late war Spits

[MiloMorai]

The Zeros could fly CAP over RAF bases. This would mean the southern bases would have to move north with all kinds of problems resulting. ie time to intercept, fuel usage.(less range),.......

The Spits and Hurries during BoB were not noted for their armour protection.

The Germans would have switched in the BMW801 and added armour to the Zero on all likelyhood.

[thrila]

I would much rather see a spit IVX than an overmodeled spit V any day, they only carry about twice the ammo load that you really saw.

Storch, it's because of people like you it's no wonder so many Lw fans get labelled as "Luftwhiners"- the label fits for you atleast.  Hitech probably  thought "What a tard" when he read-

I have concluded that HTC heavily favors the allied side in all modelling

I don't know which Spit V is modelled in AH but the Spit Vc had 120 rounds of 20mm.  I'm sure you well know it had the capacity to have 4 hispanos.  The Spit V also lacks a slipper droptank it could carry.  and what is a Spit IVX- i guess you're not a huge fan of spitfires.


For every little minor fault or detail you can list for  LW a/c i can list just as many for RAF a/c.  In fact every country can probably do the same.  

Get a grip on reality Storch.  HTC favours no side or country.

[F4UDOA]

Indeed the A6M2 would have caused the Spit I a great deal of trouble. They gave the Spit V's and Hurri's all they could handle in the South Pacific.

There is a good artical on that matchup on the web and in several publications. Many BoB veterens found themselves on the wrong end of the A6M2.

Also I don't think the performance of the Spit I and the A6M2 was that far apart especially at sea level. Just check the AH performance data.

And again the AH data shows the Spit MKI with 137 gallons of internal fuel. I don't think this is right.

More to the point however look at a P-51D from the POH.

10,200lbs
269 gallons internal
No external fuel
80 gallons per hour
35,000FT
1,200miles range
3 hours flight duration at 408MPH!!
With 29 gallons of fuel remaining
Not including 68 gallons fuel for warmup takeoff and climb to 35,000FT

How can you even begin to compare the BF109 or FW190 performance to the P-51D with full fuel.

Also

F4U-1D internal fuel 12,100lbs 237gallons internal only
Max continous normal power
Range 370 miles 15,000FT 210 GPH / 210 gallons used.
Max range cruise internal fuel 945 miles 195MPH 5,000FT 42GPH

P-38L 17,400lbs 410 gallons internal only
Max continous normal power
450miles range 360 gallons used at 12,000FT
Max range cruise internal fuel 1,210Miles 6,000FT 173MPH 50GPH.


How do these aircraft compare? These numbers are max range not max continous power. Is this represented fairly in AH?

Bf 109F2 440 miles
Bf 109 G2 528 miles
Bf 109 K4 356 miles

Spit Vb 470 miles
Spit IX 434 miles
Seafire IIc 775 miles
Hurri IIc 460 miles

Fw190 A3 497 miles
Fw190 D9 520 miles

La5 475 miles
La7 395 miles

A6M5 1194 miles
N1K2-J 1293 miles
Ki-61-I 684 miles

[Nashwan]

Also I don't think the performance of the Spit I and the A6M2 was that far apart especially at sea level. Just check the AH performance data.

AH doesn't have 100 octane in it's Spit I. With 100 octane and without mirror, the Spit I could do 300 mph+ at sea level. If AH has the correct performance figures for the A6M2, that's about 30 mph more than the Zero.

Storch: This is a thread on the Spit IX. Look at the Spit IX and you can see how much HTC "favours" the Allied side.

The AH Spit IX does 318 mph at sea level, approx the right speed for a 1942 Spit F IX without mirror.

That means it's one of the first 350 Spit IXs built, out of about 7,000 similar Spit IXs and XVIs. The next slowest Spit IX at sea level would be the HF, which did 331 mph at sea level (with mirror), and went faster than the AH Spit IX at altitude. By far the most common was the LF, which did 335 mph at sea level (with mirror). In 1944, they started using 100/150 fuel, and the Spit IX went about 360 mph at sea level, (with mirror).

The AH Spit IX is anywhere between 15 and 45 mph too slow at sea level, depending on what opponent it faces. And the next Spitfire up is one of the most expensive perks in the game. And you say HTC favours the allies?

[Squire]

*Show me any source that indicates the A6M2 was ever within 20mph of the Spit I at ANY alt.

A6M2 330mph  top, 270mph sea level
Spit I 360mph top, 300mph sea level

If that upsets anybody thats just too bad I guess. In fact the Hurricane I was as fast at most alts. Why isnt anybody claiming the A6M2 is too slow vs the 109E? The 1943 A6M5 was as fast as a Spit I...took them a few years.

*Storch, sorry buddy but your statement above is hardly "proof" of anything. You can say "I do better on Fridays", is that supposed to mean something about how HTC models ac?

*As far as the fuel thing goes...its not modelled accurately, I just dont think that AH bothered to get that detailed into the whole fuel-range-burnrate-capacity thing. Maybe in AH2.

*F4UDOA, you make an assumption at the start of your thread that the weights of the ac on the data pages are what is actually in the game with that fuel load. Unless you have access to HTC and they can show you, or you have been told, its a guess only. Players cannot "weigh" ac, so we can't know for sure. I do completely agree that the issue needs to be looked at. The AH2 forums would be the place to make your case.

[F4UDOA]

Squire,

I did not assume the weights. In fact I know the F4U-1 weight at 100% fuel is not listed on the A/C information pages.

However the Spit IX performance matches charts where the weight is listed at 7400LBS (albeit poor performance).

And even if the weight is 7,700LBS as it should be the duration is still much to long.

I am far less concerned about the performance than I am with weight and duration. Why? because performance varies with weight and duration is the linear measure of an aircraft weight.

And I have not even mentioned ammo loads.

BTW, I have no problem with a clipped wing 1943 Spit LF IX. Do you have a problem with a 1945 F4U-4C(4 M3 20MIL) or a 1944 F4U-1A(430MPH at 20K)?

[Squire]

Not at all, the more Hogs the better Its a squadron ride.

Some interesting info I dug up...it seems the Spit V and Spit IX had in some versions a 29 imp gallon auxiliary tank behind the pilot. 85+29 x 1.2 = 137 US gallons, Im sure thats where the # comes from. The Spit XIV had 36 gallons in the wings and a larger fuselage tank, so I think its listed 136 US gallons is right.

The Spit I did not have this 29 imp gallon tank however (Recce Spit Is had it), it only had the 85 imp gallon capacity in 2 forward tanks, so its range is wrong, IF in fact its modelled with it. Im sure its not the only AH ac that may be off.

...or perhaps all three Spits are modelled with the 85 imp fuselage tank but the burn rate for the fuel is off? I cant say.

I am hoping that AH2 will model the ac with the tanks they had, and rather than this "25-50-75-100" stuff...why not have the option of filling the exact tanks up? ie, the hanger shows the list for the fuel tanks, and you click wether you want them filled or not? more realistic I think.

I have to wonder if HTC "monkeyed" with some ac for balance purposes regarding range...I have no proof of this, and I cant say why they would bother either, but its odd that the Mosquito VI has such crappy range on internal fuel? same merlin engines too...strange. Its probably just glitches with AH as a sim, they are never perfect.

...finally I will say good luck trying to find the performance discrepancy for a fighter of 7400 or 7600 lbs, the #s just wont be that different.

[Nashwan]

I have to wonder if HTC "monkeyed" with some ac for balance purposes regarding range...I have no proof of this, and I cant say why they would bother either,

I wonder that as well.

Fuel burn is adjusted higher because all bases in AH are close together relative to real world conditions. However, altering fuel burn affects vertical distance, which remains the same, and time, which also remains the same.

For example, a Spit IX in RL could climb to 40,000 in 20 minutes at 12lbs boost. After that, it would still have a substantiall amount of fuel left. In AH, if fuel consumption is twice as high during the climb, it will run out of fuel almost as soon as it reaches 40K.

Also, a fight lasting 5 minutes at WEP in AH would use as much fuel as a real life fight lasting 12 minutes or more (5 mins WEP, 7 mins+ at 12lbs).

So increased fuel burn compensates for shorter horizontal distances, but has an adverse and unrealistic effect on altitude and combat time. Obviously, the shorter the real life range, the greater the effect increased fuel burn has on altitude and persistence. Perhaps HTC has simply fudged fuel for this reason?

(BTW, the Spit should be able to carry more external fuel, the RAF used a 90 IMP gallon drop tank (410 litres), not a German 300 litre tank)