Friday 9/10/04

[Squire]

With the F6F Hellcat on the CVs and the Spit V and P-40E I dont think the allies need anything else. There is no NIK2 in the setup. Its a fair 1943-44 set. Leave it alone.

You could add the F4F-4 for completeness sake, although I doubt many will fly it with the Hellcat available. FM-2 is really a late 44 ride, historically .

...as for the comments regarding the Spitfire V in the CT...all I see is the usual unsubstantiated "Spit bashing", with no proof to back it up. The idea that its overmodelled because of some HTC business conspiracy??? Well, I admit I have not heard that one before, so, B+ for originality, F on content.

I hope the new CT staffers will be more open minded than that however, or in all seriosness, they should step aside.

[Soulyss]

I think if I added the f4f I'd be the only one flying it.  I love the wildcat.  I just wish the A6M2's guns had just a wee bit more oompf to them.  Zeke/Wilcat one of my favorite matchups.

[Edbert]

Originally posted by Oldman731
Would it be possible to include the A6M2?  

LOL! That Hurri-I you flew so well with last night too fast for ya?

[storch]

The overboosted spitV is probably faster than anything in the planeset.  This weeks game will be zekes chasing spits who may or may not want to fight.  anything else you tell yourself is delusional.

[Squire]

Sea level tests:

Ki-61: 312 mph wep

Spit V: 315 mph wep

F6F: 328 mph wep <

Just ran them.

Btw the 109F-4 does 330 mph wep, so even the overboosted cheating Spit V is still 15 mph slower. Interesting.

So much for the "Super Spit? 315 mph at sea level, wow, thats incredible, why bother with a F4U-1 now.

[Karnak]

Squire,

I wasn't bashing the Spit or saying it is overmodeled. I was just stating the fact that the chart is no longer accurate.

I like Spits.  They were great warplanes.

[storch]

try it at 5000 then at 8000 then at 12000.  It shouldn't be boosting 16lbs.

Spits are overmodelled in this game.

[Squire]

I didnt think you were Karnak.

Storch:

Do a speed test and give the #s and compare them to real stats, showing some irregularity big enough to be concerned about. I will be waiting.

You have not produced a single thing that backs up your claim, that Spits (im assuming all of them), are overmodelled past the usual garbage we get from the Spit-bashing-club, that focuses exclusively on any minute detail that may be modelled >< much off, and then go on long diatribes about it, while ignoring every other a/c in AH.

And for info, RAF pilots were running +12 boost in 1940 (100 octane fuel) from Spit I and Hurricane I Merlin XXs, even though it wasnt really cleared for it. They did the same with the Merlin 45, to +16 lbs (100 octane fuel), even though it wasnt "officially" cleared for it untill 1942. But like I say, show me some #s...show me how its faster than its supposed to be to some degree we should care...

Also, engine management and modelling is deliberately simplified for all ac in AH, not just the Spitfire. I would like to see a better model, but right now it is what it is. The most important thing is, do the a/c hit their #s reasonably close.

[memnon]

Originally posted by Soulyss
I think if I added the f4f I'd be the only one flying it.  I love the wildcat.  I just wish the A6M2's guns had just a wee bit more oompf to them.  Zeke/Wilcat one of my favorite matchups.

I would be flying the F4F. I had an absolute blast in the setup with the A6M2/F4F.

[VWE]

I'll be looking for you Memnon...

[Mister Fork]

Squire/Storch, the current SpitV we have with respect to boost is at odds with all my records. Being my favorite allied aircraft, I've done extensive research on this problem we have. I've got tonnes of materials on the Spitfre and here's what I've dug up.

See my bug report.  The engine and the model is not matching (at least in my books it's not matching).

The Forth Fighter Group website has the actual test documents from WWII on the Spitfire V and all it's variants.  If it is the 16+ boost Merlin engine, it has WEP for only 3 minutes, not the current 10+ we get now.  Great link here.

The big engine book I own which I got at a flea market at CFB Trenton, is called "Rolls-Royce Piston Aero Engines – A Designer Remembers",  talks very specific about the Merlin 45. It had a very limited boost at 16+ which the pilots often damaged by overheating the engine when engaged. RAF/RCAF pilots loved the Merlin 45 Spitfire V but it's short legs in combat power was problematic. The solution was the Merlin 46 which allowed much longer boost times.  

I do believe the SpitfireV model in Aces High II should be the Merlin 46 model with a +12 boost but we have the Merlin 45 boost with the 46 duration.

Grits, yes, the Seafire has the same weird engine that the Spitfire V has.

But then again, what do I know?

[storch]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
Squire/Storch, the current SpitV we have with respect to boost is at odds with all my records. Being my favorite allied aircraft, I've done extensive research on this problem we have. I've got tonnes of materials on the Spitfre and here's what I've dug up.

See my bug report.  The engine and the model is not matching (at least in my books it's not matching).

The Forth Fighter Group website has the actual test documents from WWII on the Spitfire V and all it's variants.  If it is the 16+ boost Merlin engine, it has WEP for only 3 minutes, not the current 10+ we get now.  Great link here.

The big engine book I own which I got at a flea market at CFB Trenton, is called "Rolls-Royce Piston Aero Engines – A Designer Remembers",  talks very specific about the Merlin 45. It had a very limited boost at 16+ which the pilots often damaged by overheating the engine when engaged. RAF/RCAF pilots loved the Merlin 45 Spitfire V but it's short legs in combat power was problematic. The solution was the Merlin 46 which allowed much longer boost times.  

I do believe the SpitfireV model in Aces High II should be the Merlin 46 model with a +12 boost but we have the Merlin 45 boost with the 46 duration.

Grits, yes, the Seafire has the same weird engine that the Spitfire V has.

But then again, what do I know?

Thank you for the information Fork.  I was not going to respond to Warloc.  We all have our prejudices and he certainly is as entitled to his as I am to mine.  The SpitV wasn't all that or else there would have been no need to develope the model further.  It was outclassed by the 190A3 in all aspects except turn radius.  That is simply not the case here.  The people at HTC know it, have admitted it and have stated that they will not be doing anything about it.  It's their game and as a business decision I fully understand it.  The only place where this blatant imbalance is a problem is in the CT.  The CT is an ignorable piece of HTC's business and honestly If I were on board with them I would totally agree with the decision.  In fairness Pyro did state that he would look closely at the data the Crumpp has meticulously and respectfully submitted and consider a possible tweak to the 190's FM.  One can only hope.  Maybe it will happen in two weeks.  

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Soulyss
The spit V is in unless gameplay during the week dictates a change, but the zeke will out turn it

I am looking forward to this.  A6M2 ate up the Spit I when we had that setup.  I am expecting that it will eat the spit 5 as well.

- oldman

[Grits]

From my first A6M5 vs 2 Spit5's, I can say I think this will be a fun set.

[Squire]

Two things. #1 your link shows the Merlin 45 was capable of +16 lbs boost, and #2 if you run up a Spit V in AH to normal operating temp 1st, you will find the boost gives out after 5 minutes exactly.

 *ALL* the fighters in AH get extra boost if you run it "cold" from takeoff. Thats an HTC engine model, and hardly unique to just the Spitfire.

The book I have indicates +16 lbs for 5 minutes with a Merlin 45.

Also, the AH Spit V speeds match the #s from data you will find, as does its climb rate, so in the end its more a debate on what the guage shows as opposed to errors in its FM.

The fact thats it not 100 percent perfect modelling in every respect is not any "proof" of the overblown claims made against its flight modelling, sorry.