can "we" have 1 more Spitfire/109 variant?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Squire
Compare the P-51B and P-51D, somebody will have to show me what the huge vis diff is.

1) Internal view is far better at all angles behind and to the sides looking behind. With internal only views this makes a BIG difference seeing the enemy about to bounce your 6 or being bounced and killed unawares. The majority of spits were high back and so they should all have this "blind spot". The P51B and D have this same issue, only the P51B would have a better rear view than the spit as its head can move sideways more (Malcolm hood).

2) I've seen a lot of pilots that do this, and I do it myself more often than not, but when flying with an enemy behind you many pilots will look behind as they pull manuvers, to see where the enemy is and time manuvers. This includes rear six and high six views. In a bubble top p51D you can see the enemy far  better than in a p51B. The P51B has a lot more guess work, and you lose the enemy more. I make this a different category, as the one above is "spotting the enemy in the first place" and this one is "fighting the enemy once inside guns range".

3) The high back P51B is much more stable at low speeds due to lateral stability, that the P51D does not have. The high back actually helps (like a wider stab) to keep the plane flying properly. I find that I can pull some moves in a P51B that make me spin out in a P51D (mind you I'm no expert and I haven't flown them too recently). The Spitfire with the low back and bubble top would have different drag and different forces acting on it at different times. It would be more unstable and would spin at times that a SpitV would never spin.

The improvements for the pilot are enough, but the flight model would be changed as well. I say stick with the far more common high-back version.

[Squire]

Im not saying that there is absolutely no improvement, but I mean, go into AH and compare the P-51B and P-51D, there just isnt a huge increase . I really think its over stated.

Btw the 5700fpm thing is on 150 avgas, HTC already pretty much said its going to be a 100 avgas version, its climb will be less than a XIV, but better than a F.IX. I dont think anybody should freak out.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Karnak
The IX could just as easily have been a bubble top.

In any case I think they are making the aircraft for the MA and ToD, not scenarios primarily.  For the MA either will do, though the bubble top may have been more interesting.  For ToD though the only one that would be useful is the high backed Mk XVI.

There were some late production Spit IXs with the bubble top.

Folks gotta quit seperating the IX and XVI.  It was the same bird, outside of the engine being either Rolls Royce Merlin 66 or Packerd Merlin 266.

Here's an image of a lowback Spitfire LFIXe.  Had it been engined with a Merlin 266, it would have been designated an LFXVIe.  

It's all about the engine.  The late IXe and XVIe are the same bird otherwise.

The serial is TE215 if anyone wants to check the serial against the type Spit it is.

[Krusty]

Not that I was freaking out, more like asking for clarification. That's what it sounded like reading all these different posts. Not sure what to take away from it. Thanks for clearing that up.


Re: High back: well the p51s aren't a perfect comparison because they have different engines in them (B for higher alt D for med alt), so the performance is going to be a bit off regardless. However I'd like to add that teh bubble top looks ugly as sin, in the hopes that HTC doesn't add it to AH ever

[NoOne]

LF Spitfire are  for the clip wing of any Mark, really fine for ops under 15k feet.

HF Spitfire are for longer winged Marks, really fine if you are flying over 20K feet.

Mark VIII were for Tropical areas.

Mark X were photo Recon Spits.

Each had the Dash number engines that was opminized for where they were flying.

High Low

If you had a LF Mark IX, do not engage in combat above 15k. Dive away and pull them down to where you will operate the best.

I read the Spitfires Pilot's handbook printed by the RAF for pilots of VII, VIII
and X.

[Karnak]

Dan,

That is what I was trying to explain to Pongo.  The highback LF.XVIe would be no more of a missed oportunity than a highback LF.IXe from his perspective.  His post seemed to separate the two and list the XVI as having more to do with the bubble tops.

[Krusty]

You might want to double check some of your facts there... The wing had nothing to do with LF/F/HF, that was the engine rating. The engine alone doesn't dictate what you do, just emphasizes a different altitude band than other engines. The IX was a fighter, not just a recon. There were some recon made, but it was a fighter foremost. The VIII was not specially made for tropical areas.

[Squire]

"LF" was not a designation for the wing. Thats probably the most common misconception of the Spit LF V and Spit LF IX. LF reffered to the engine, many had standard wings. Many HF IXs and HF VIIIs did not have extended wings either.

Was just referring to the vis issue re the difference between 51B and 51D.

Personally, I think HTC should just rename it Spit LF IXE and be done with it, the XVI just confuses too many people (too close to XIV too). I blame the RAF of course, but they weren't worrying about pc games in 2005 at the time...

Spit Ia
Spit Vb
Spit FIX
Spit LF IXE
Spit XIV

Looks better like that, and is easier to explain.

And you are right of course, there is no diff between a IXE and a XVIE at all. Both had clipped wings, and broad chord rudders in some versions. I think it was the early call for a "XVI" that got HTC into that mode of thinking.

No big deal either way, I love it just the same

[Karnak]

The reason I picked the Mk XVI was because HTC seemed to want to just go with basic mark numbers.  Note for instance that they called the Mosquito a "Mosquito Mk VI" when it was universally a "Mosquito FB.Mk VI" in reality.  The FB is reduntant in that case as all Mossie VIs were FBs.

Going with the Mk XVI allowed an earlier Mk IX without giving basic players coniptions as they saw different Mk IXs listed for the first time ever in their lives.  I think most people are smart enough to learn the difference between a Mk XIV and Mk XVI.  Thus my list was:

Mk Ia
Mk Vb
Mk VIII
Mk IX
Mk XIV
Mk XVI

Mk III (Seafire)


That list kept the simple mark numbers while giving the coverage I thought was good.  Pyro was already thinking along similar lines (hardly surprising as there are only so many viable ways to get coverage) so my list was far more a predictive list than a list HTC adopted.  The discussions we all had on this forum did help though.

We'll see how it looks when the new version gets here.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Krusty
You might want to double check some of your facts there... The wing had nothing to do with LF/F/HF, that was the engine rating. The engine alone doesn't dictate what you do, just emphasizes a different altitude band than other engines. The IX was a fighter, not just a recon. There were some recon made, but it was a fighter foremost. The VIII was not specially made for tropical areas.

Just to clarify on the VIII.  It was decided that that VIII would be designated for overseas service.  The VIII did not see service from England.  This was why it was tropicalized and went to the MTO, CBI and RAAF in the Pacific.  The IX was not tropicalized initially and did not have the same filter under the nose until 44 when the dust and dirt of Normandy caused problems for the IXs and the tropical filter was added.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Krusty
You might want to double check some of your facts there... The wing had nothing to do with LF/F/HF, that was the engine rating. The engine alone doesn't dictate what you do, just emphasizes a different altitude band than other engines. The IX was a fighter, not just a recon. There were some recon made, but it was a fighter foremost. The VIII was not specially made for tropical areas.

In fact the FR IX was flown by 16 sqn on D-Day, it's the infamous 'Pink Spit' in the game.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Pongo
who cares about "the war"
Its not about scenarios its about experiancing the aircraft in the MA.
Say it was too much work if you like but admit thats the case, the plane they have added could have been represented with a clipped wing spit IX. With the XVI they had a chance to have a truely different plane and they passed on it.

A bubbletop XVI would have really stood out, shame they passed on the chance.
Didn't make any difference to performance so would have still have been able to stand in for a LF IX. (ignoring 'cosmetic' differences).
Plus in the future if any further Spits were added (eg F.21) the basic modelling would have allready been done. Would have also gave options for bubbletop IX's and XIV's.

[Karnak]

Cockpit visibility is a performance characteristic.

Also, the F.21, should it ever happen (I doubt it), is a high backed Spitfire.

[Guppy35]

Spit 21 had the high back profile.  Spit 22 and 24 were low back and postwar.

Of course I just prefer the high back looks.  It still looks like a Spit then.  Now should someone give me a real low back LFXVI I won't turn it down....

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Karnak
Cockpit visibility is a performance characteristic.

Also, the F.21, should it ever happen (I doubt it), is a high backed Spitfire.

Yup F.21 was high back, my bad.
Was looking to the future.
Who's to say whether we might get a further 'fattening out' of Spit/109/190 etc.
Still room for II, XII, F.21 (dunno why not, seen service from early 45)

Now that would be a line up -
I
II
F Vb
LF Vc
F IX
LF VIII
LF IX (highback 18lbs)
XII
F XIV
LF XVI (bubble 25lbs)
F.21

Anyway maybe we should be thinking about Hurris, Mossies, Tiffs.
Get one step ahead.

e.g. Hurri I, IIc, IId, Sea Hurricane
Mossie B IV, FB VI, +later war one.