Author Topic: Spoke to Pyro re Spits (Read 6111 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #165 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:11:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You said that the Boost ratings everyone is talking about is the boost for Wep.

The current Spit 1 has +6 on full power and +12 on WEP.

No, it is +6lbs. The gauge says +12, but it isn't correct. The performance is as +6 and Pyro said it is +6.

1K3 · « **Reply #166 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:19:41 PM »

The guage is incorrect... i wonder why HTC didnt make corrections on teh last parth

if Spirfire 1 is running @ +12/100 octane fuel....

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Nashwan · « **Reply #167 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:58:49 PM »

Quote

No, it is +6lbs. The gauge says +12, but it isn't correct. The performance is as +6 and Pyro said it is +6.

Fuel consumption is correct for 12 lbs as well, iirc. Performance is definately nowhere near 12 lbs though (although it might be slightly too high for 6.25 lbs)

Meyer · « **Reply #168 on:** August 04, 2005, 10:20:19 PM »

Thx for the chart, Kev.

So that power/weight ratio is very similar to a 109 at 1.98 ata, but yet, the RoC is listed as 1000feet/min higher than a K-4....

MiloMorai · « **Reply #169 on:** August 04, 2005, 10:43:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Meyer
Thx for the chart, Kev.

So that power/weight ratio is very similar to a 109 at 1.98 ata, but yet, the RoC is listed as 1000feet/min higher than a K-4....

Would bet that the greater wing area of the Spit generated more lift than the smaller 109 wing area.

Meyer · « **Reply #170 on:** August 04, 2005, 10:48:21 PM »

Not sure if lift has any relevance in RoC...

Squire · « **Reply #171 on:** August 05, 2005, 01:21:50 AM »

" The performance is as +6 and Pyro said it is +6."

Proof of the HTC anti-allied conspiracy!!! (in leage with the Freemasons, and Texas Oil Interests...)

straffo · « **Reply #172 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:58:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
You understand nothing, apparently. I will not explain the quote in my sig, nor will I explain off-topic things to you, after I just posted to everyone that we should keep on-topic posts only, in here.

Again,what is your MA handle ?

thrila · « **Reply #173 on:** August 05, 2005, 04:55:51 AM »

If we we get a clipped wing spit i'll be over the moon. IX, XVI, VIII, 18 or 25 boost i don't care. Clipped wing spits just look so damn cool.

Seeker · « **Reply #174 on:** August 05, 2005, 06:02:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Again,what is your MA handle ?

He doesn't have one; he's a free loader.

Wotan · « **Reply #175 on:** August 05, 2005, 06:30:39 AM »

Ah ok, he wouldn't answer me in another thread when I asked. He was giving 'how to advice' on how a certain plane should be flown...

Any way that's another thread...

straffo · « **Reply #176 on:** August 05, 2005, 07:02:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seeker
He doesn't have one; he's a free loader.

Why I'm not surprised ?

Go away Krusty or pay.

Bronk · « **Reply #177 on:** August 05, 2005, 12:15:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Hear , Hear,
Krusty has been one of the few LW who are willing to at least discuss the 25lbs Spit XVI and not immediately come out with "YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT".

Like we have said Wotan, yes it is a good list, but in the long run the boost settings are very important.
The Mk VIII at 18lbs boost will have an almost identical perfomance to the Mk XVI at 18lbs boost, in that case we don't need both, and probably won't get both, it almost duplication and a waste of effort.
There were more reasons to selecitng a 25lbs boost XVI than the extra performance, one of them was to avoid duplicaiton, the other was to allow the Spit LF VIII to stand in for the LF IX in scenarios.

Kev,
You are correct that Krusty didn't say "YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT".
But he did say "I shure HOPE it gets perked.". Thats what got me bit miffed.

Bronk

Kev367th · « **Reply #178 on:** August 05, 2005, 12:41:15 PM »

Well we got a few guys searching for more data on the XVI.

That 5700fpm is alleged 0-5000ft

If found a source that quotes 4100fpm inital climb although doesn't mention 18 or 25 boost.

Also that 4th fighter group report is for a Mk IX, full wings, no bomb racks, and contains a few typos. I'm pretty sure I read the XVI carried slighly more fuel also so that would affect the climb.

So wait out, we'll get to the bottom of it.

Yeah perking it would be absurd, the 12th fastest plane in planeset perked because of climb, lol. Only 12th fastest for 5 mins after that knock off 25mph+.
Funny how a half decent Spit produces mass panic

.

Just waiting for the perk the Seafire L III screams, once they find out its better than our current V.

Krusty · « **Reply #179 on:** August 05, 2005, 01:57:41 PM »

Straffo, seeker, bite me. Don't post if you're not helping.

Bronk, what does it matter if I express the opinion that "I sure hope it's perked!" when it appears to be a plane that possesses every best trait of every great plane in this game, all in one package, where any greenhorn pilot can get 15 kills a sortie in after 1 hours learning curve, that when you meet it in a fight it will be impossible to defeat unless you are in the same plane?

What does it matter if my opinion states that I think super powerful planes should be perked? I've been playing enough games for long enough to notice that the most important thing any game can ever have, by far surpassing realism, surpassing graphics, surpassing all else, is balanced gameplay. In the interest of balanced gameplay, and keeping AH2 in the black financially, certain things have to be considered. That includes perking some rides.

There you have my reasoning behind my opinion. Having said that, I ask you why you hold a grudge against me having an opinion?

I'm all for including the plane. But there is that thing called balance. I also think about that.