Author Topic: It's official... (Read 8064 times)

Kev367th · « **Reply #135 on:** December 18, 2005, 06:09:15 PM »

Thanks Crumpp -

So why is not one LF V included included in the report, it would have made it a lot more methodical and logical?
Who knows.

Why mention the IX and XII on page one, then only include comments from the Vb pilots?
Who knows.

Dunno Crumpp, the recomendation makes sense in respect of clipping F or even HF series Spits, but as an LF of any kind was not included..........

If this report was prior to the LF being introduced it makes even less sense to say clipping was undesirable for later Spits based on it.

I will agree with it in as much that clipping an F V, F IX would produce undesireable results, not favourable for their usual operating alts.
However the same wouldn't necessarily hold true for LF V's, and would definately be in question for Merlin 66 LF's.

Pyro already had the data he needed for the XVI (spoke to him at length about the XVI well prior to its release), I don't believe anything came from the community.

Crumpp · « **Reply #136 on:** December 18, 2005, 06:16:03 PM »

Quote

Pyro already had the data he needed for the XVI (spoke to him at length about the XVI well prior to its release), I don't believe anything came from the community.

I am willing to bet it did come from the community. Some interested soul sent in the data.

All the best,

Crumpp

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #137 on:** December 18, 2005, 06:19:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Visibility- Everything I've read says the Spit had better visibilty.

Guns - If it were a live pilot in a real Spit, no you wouldn't, however its not. As yet another example - how many times you been in something like a 110 with the complete gun package and something like a A6M will try and ho you.
How many guys gets kills in IL2's because people try to ho them.
Hispanos - Only real complaints I ever read about conscerned the early ones that were prone to jamming, but HT doesn't model any kind of failure.

You can't compare real life anything to AH2.
Things happen on a regualr basis in AH2 that would probably be one in a million 'real life', because we only have our virtual life on the line.

"Better visibility" doesn't begin to describe the difference between the views from AH2's RAF/US and LW planes. I actually think the LW planes are closer to "right" based on the in-cockpit photos that people have posted.

For the guns, I am talking about in AH2. Two Hispanos HO better than 4 MG151's - in accuracy and lethality.

Kev367th · « **Reply #138 on:** December 18, 2005, 06:23:51 PM »

Anythings possible.
I just know when I offered to send a copy of a report I had ordered from the National Archives comparing XVI to LF IX, he said he already had all he needed.
This was the same day he allowed me to post on the BB that the XVI was to be included in the new lineup.

Just as well really - Was expecting nice performance charts, got a single page doc that boiled down to:
"We expect the LF XVI to perform the same as the LF IX"

Dok - Been numerous threads along the lines of Pony 50 cals neutered etc, Guy will state that the Jug 50's are a lot better than the Ponys ones, then HT points out all 50 cals are modelled the same on all the different aircraft.
Hispanos have always been known for their hitting power, yet now in AH2 compared to AH 'classic" you can't hit as far out, peppered guys with 4x20mms (Tiffy) did very little, ping a different guy one once his wing has fallen off.
All seemed to change when the new hit detection was introduced.

Another thing that makes it harder to tell - You don't always see hit sprites.

Squire · « **Reply #139 on:** December 18, 2005, 06:35:28 PM »

I can tell you right now all the stuff about HOing 190s is completely taken out of context.

You guys argue about the FM, guns and tactics as if the MA flyers are flying real WW2 missions. They are not.

Spits HO because they have cannon, and many players HO anything in sight. So do LAs, P-51s, P-38s, 190s, and N1K2s.

Why?

Would it be because its just a game where you can be shot down 20 times an hour and still re-up?

You think any Spit pilot is going to HO a 190 in this sim if he was told that if he is shot down, he will be carted off to the electric chair as a penalty?

I flew many Spits in Scens and other Events, fought many a 190 and 109 in limited life setups, and I dont recall *once* forcing a HO in one. Why? because I wanted to land my sortie. Only a complete fool would HO a 190 if they cared 2 cents for their skin.

So dont be ridiculous.

Crumpp · « **Reply #140 on:** December 18, 2005, 06:38:41 PM »

Quote

then only include comments from the Vb pilots?

The pilot survey is a seperate report. It is a fact finding report on the effectiveness of clipping wing Spitfires against the FW-190.

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #141 on:** December 18, 2005, 06:49:26 PM »

Speaking of Spits - here's some bit of the VIII.
A RAF sqn based at China Bay. Those guys were amongst other duties testing G-Suits being able to pull 8g's while still being in a visual state.
(unfortunately the guns wouldn't fire with more than 5g's)
Then they played with the Hellcat boys from USS Saratoga and pilots from HMS Illustrious.
The pilot in question is M.C. "Bush" Cotton.
He quotes ROC as 5000 fpm (initial presumably) and top speed as 420 mph PLUS!!!!
Wonder what octanes they were running on there.....

Anyway Mk VIII should out turn the XVI if the loading is the same - that does not mean 50% vs 50% fuel - more like 50 to 75.....

Kev367th · « **Reply #142 on:** December 18, 2005, 06:52:09 PM »

Ah, well that would make sense then.

One report (pilots comments) stating clipping definately improved roll vs a different report saying it was not to be recommended.

Angus - I definately think the Mk VIII FM is based on an extended wing version that was test flown. But have so far been unable to find performance charts for a std wing VIII.

Crumpp · « **Reply #143 on:** December 18, 2005, 07:08:02 PM »

Quote

One report (pilots comments) stating clipping definately improved roll

One report stating clipping the wings improved the roll rate vs the FW-190. None of the pilots felt it was competative or the answer. It is not equal or superior to the Focke Wulf and "leaves a lot to be desired".

The report is talking about roll performance which should not generally change among the Spitfire variants.

http://img131.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc285&image=51aca_pilotopinions.jpg

The other report recommends not clipping the wings because normal wing spitfires can roll almost as well. Clipping the wings does not give the Spitfire any advantage over the FW-190 in the roll and it makes the Bf-109 greatly superior. So it is no wonder it was not recommended.

http://img108.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc126&image=eb7b9_clipped_wing_conclusions.jpg

The Spitfires like the Mk XII looking to go after FW-190's gained a chance of following the FW-190 in the aileron turn and would be the ones who benefited from clipping.

The LF Merlin 66 equipped Spitfires were an attempt to wrestle low altitude superiority from the FW-190. According to the FW-190 pilots they did for a few months.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kev367th · « **Reply #144 on:** December 18, 2005, 08:30:26 PM »

Let try this Crummp if your agreeable.

We can go through what is listed as the disadvantges one by one, I can give you my take on them, then you can state your side.

As you have already agreed clipping the XII was a good idea (contrary to the report) we can just deal with the V and IX.

Few prelims -
a) It didn't give the Spits an advantage, but narrowed the advantage the 190 had.
b) Both the V and IX in the report are F versions (Merlin 45 and 61)
c) Report is pre LF IX but probably within LF V timeframe.
d) Mid/late1943 onwards the airwar for the RAF was moving to lower alts, hence majority of aircraft produced were LF versions.
e) All the pilots said it definately improved the roll.
f) LF's were designed for different alts than F's.
g) Comparison to be with LF models.

Any probs with them?

Crumpp · « **Reply #145 on:** December 18, 2005, 08:52:28 PM »

Quote

Any probs with them?

None at all.

Kev367th · « **Reply #146 on:** December 18, 2005, 09:11:24 PM »

Excellent.

OK lets start with disadvantage # (ii) in the report -

Small increase in take off run (serious for ship borne aircraft).

1st part - We are talking 1943 here where the airwar was for the most part over German soil. RAF was operating from well established airfields not some backyard garden.
2nd part - Patently wrong, Seafires flew off carriers with clipped wings fully loaded without a problem.

Ok or not?

Kev367th · « **Reply #147 on:** December 18, 2005, 09:29:37 PM »

Part two

(v) Decrease in speed over 20,000ft
Definately a disadvantage for an F series, but resulted in speed increase at low alts, a definate bonus for LF models.

Agree or not

Rest tomorrow, have a good night.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #148 on:** December 18, 2005, 11:47:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

Now how come there is no outrage from Spitfire fans who want to see a correctly modeled Spitfire when the data exceeds Supermarines guarenteed percetages?

Crumpp

I think you'd agree that the guys talking Spits here, all agreed the previous AH Spit V variant needed to be brought back to the pack. I think you'll also find we all agreed it should be the 41 Vb with less ammo as well. That was certainly my suggestion.

I'd also suggest that the Spit fans have not complained about LW planes or asked for them to be changed, and in fact have supported the efforts of the LW experts to get their point across. I think it interesting that it's LW fliers that are the ones leading the charge to neuter the Spit XVI, and in some cases LW junkies who don't even play the game.

I'd ask if you gents complaining about the XVI are actually flying it in the arenas? I have yet to see it uber unless I've run into a pilot who knew what he was doing, and that's been exactly twice since it arrived for me. BluKitty ate me alive in one, and Lev did. But I'd suggest they are hardly representative of the average Spit pilot in the MA.

I also have said it a number of times, that based on flying the Spits in the arena, the Spit IX appears best overall to me,and that's even down low cause I don't know how to get above 10K. I sure don't mind taking on 16s while flying a 9 as it out turns the 16. Something about those regular wingtips I guess

Crumpp · « **Reply #149 on:** December 18, 2005, 11:56:43 PM »

Quote

Small increase in take off run (serious for ship borne aircraft).

Agreed.

However from an aerodynamics point of view it shows a decrease in lift which would effect climb, useful load capacity, and turn ability. Which clipping the wings does.

Quote

Decrease in speed over 20,000ft

Agree that it is not a big disadvantage when your focus is on the tactical air war at low altitudes.

It is a big advantage when your trying to increase your low altitude performance.

You do know it has never been my contention that Spitfires did not get clipped wings nor that it did not offer some advantages. Only that there are design consequences which should be modeled.

Does the Bf-109 outturn the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH? It should as the RAE determined that the 109 was greatly superior.

All the best,

Crumpp