Author Topic: Why the apathy about the 2nd most common aircraft, the Spitfire MkIX? (Read 3960 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #15 on:** August 06, 2001, 11:50:00 PM »

GRUNHERZ,

Whoever posted that was very, VERY optimistic.

The Spitfire MkXIV desn't even do 370 at sea level. Spit 14 does 355 to 363 depending on your source.

juzz · « **Reply #16 on:** August 07, 2001, 12:01:00 AM »

Spitfire LF.VIII(Merlin 66 engine with "Basta" mods@+25lbs boost) = 362mph at SL, initial climbrate 5580fpm.

Mk VIII is practically the same as Mk IX, except for the retracting tailwheel.

DeeZCamp · « **Reply #17 on:** August 07, 2001, 12:10:00 AM »

Spits are simplistic to fly here...

190's are more challenging.. and rewarding after the kill.. takes alittle (lot) more thought and good flying to keep the fight on your terms in a 190A8/5 compared to spit

Karnak · « **Reply #18 on:** August 07, 2001, 02:53:00 AM »

DeeZCamp,

And that has what to do with wanting a historically accurate Spitfire IX?

Oh, I see. You're suggesting that the Spitfire isn't a valid fighter.

Please take your elitism elsewhere.

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

eddiek · « **Reply #19 on:** August 07, 2001, 03:30:00 AM »

Karnak, I apologize for not responding in more detail than I did in the "jugfire" thread.
I agree with ya, the Spit9, IMO, needs to be modeled and armed correctly, historically, etc.......

I just got caught up in the furor in disputing what the Jug "should" be modeled like, factory stock, or combat ready.
Sorry for the oversight on my part..

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: eddiek ]

flakbait · « **Reply #20 on:** August 07, 2001, 05:51:00 AM »

I can't recall the total number of times it's been said. Ever since Day One of AH most everyone has agreed that if an option wasn't available in the war, it shouldn't be made. Turns out HTC did just that, by action or omission. The Spit Mk XI we've got, from what I've gathered by these posts, had no .50 cal option and no rockets. I think there was something about a boost problem posted, but I can't say for certain. Since they weren't available to this aircraft, I say pull the options. If another Spit comes in to make up for the short-comming of having no .50 cal armed Spit, that's fine by me. Either way, pull the options and get this thing fixed.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb

Pongo · « **Reply #21 on:** August 07, 2001, 11:30:00 AM »

"With supposed performance like you guys say why did the British even bother with the Griffon spits???
"
Which is exactly what happend to Spit development in WW2. Radical change was a luxury because of the development potential of the Spit IX and VIII. The pilots were not asking for anything better. The Germans for the most part were at a serios disadvantage against the Merlin Spits.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #22 on:** August 07, 2001, 11:35:00 AM »

whaddahell?

Karnak wants the Spitfire Mk.IX to be revised so it's an actual Spitfire model, not just some generic average the numbers and see what we get model...

And you guys go off in some tangent about 190s being harder to fly, Spitfires being easy mode, throwing around number about it's top speed for reasons to not add it..

What a load, his first comment about players that like German planes was right, and is right.

You all DID notice all the squeaking about the German guns, roll rate, 109's ability to pull Gs, etc.. or am I the only one?

Karnak has a legitimate gripe.
-SW

Urchin · « **Reply #23 on:** August 07, 2001, 12:50:00 PM »

Yep, karnak does have a legitamate argument. The reason that there aren't more vocal people about the Spit is that there are probably 5 people that play AH and fly the Spit because it was the one of the greatest warbirds ever made. The other Spit pilots like the AH spit because it can turn, and it has cannons. I'm no expert on Spitfires, don't get me wrong- but it couldn't hurt to have a 1940<?> (Mk V), 1942 (Mk IX), and a 1944 version of the spit. Yes, everyone will use the 1944 version of the spit, and possibly some N1K2 drivers might switch to it depending on the guns, but the Spit fans (all 5 of them) DO deserve to be put on equal footing with everyone else. Of course, that is just my opinion.

OH, and BTW- I'm fairly apathetic towards the Spit we have now, I can usually kill them in a fight. If the new Spit can hand every German plane its bellybutton like the Nik can, then I might be a more vocifirous opponent.

Angus · « **Reply #24 on:** August 07, 2001, 01:36:00 PM »

Karnak, good points and good to raise this issue.
SOB said the spits were RARELY SEEN?!?!?!?!?!
What does that mean? there were about 20.000 built and USED, and used extensively.
In the European theater from 1941 onwards, the Spit was the MAIN allied fighter for YEARS, if it ever got outnumbered by one, that is.
Subvariants of spits would by my opinion anly make AH better. HVY fighter and LW ppl may whine when the time comes, when a spit is a FAST plane, well, that is just the truth, the final spits were really fast, and the LF spits were really good at low alt. However, the absence of the wingtips also affects the stalling characteristics and turn rate in a negative way, so what is there to whine about???
Bring the spit 1, 7, LF variants (maybe an option in the hangar?), 14 and 19...yess

Karnak · « **Reply #25 on:** August 07, 2001, 01:40:00 PM »

Urchin,

I agree that there seems to be a distinct lack of true Spitfire fans. The reason it is the 2nd most common aircraft is, as you said, because it turns and has cannons and nothing to do with what it was or how important it was.

FYI, here is a crude Spitfire fighter types development by year:

1938
Spitfire Mk I (2 blade prop, no ejector stacks, flat cockpit hood & 4 .303s)
Spitfire Mk Ia
1940
Spitfire Mk Ib (2 Hispano MkI cannon with 60 rounds each, extremely prone to jamming)
Spitfire Mk IIa
Spitfire Mk IIb (2 Hispano MkI cannon with 60 rounds each, extremely prone to jamming)
1941
Spitfire Mk Va
Spitfire Mk Vb
Spitfire Mk Vc (4 cannon version with additional structual strength and armor)
1942
Spitfire F.Mk IX (FM we have in AH)
1943
Spitfire LF.Mk V (Mk V refitted for low alt ground attack due to availability of Mk IX)
Spitfire LF.Mk VIII (The best merlin Spit)
Spitfire LF.Mk IXc
Spitfire HF.Mk IXc
Spitfire Mk XII (The first Griffon Spit, single stage Griffon II or IV with clipped wings)
1944
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe (Armament options we have in AH)
Spitfire F.Mk XIVc
Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe (Bubble cannopy and camera equipment, additional fuel)
Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe (Same as LF.IXe, but with a Packard Merlin 266)
1945
Spitfire LF.Mk XVI (Bubble canopy added to Merlin Spit)
Spitfire F.21 (Final wartime Spit. Redesigned wing to eliminate wing warping, armed with 4 Hispano MkII cannon with 150 rounds each. Griffon 61 or 64)

I think that it is likely that any post-1942 Spitfire would have to be a perk plane. The Spit is the ideal fighter for environments like the MA of AH.

Currently a good Fw190D-9 or Bf109G-10 pilot should almost never lose to a Spitfire they are aware of in AH. The Spit pilot can force a draw, but due to speed and climb it is the 109 or 190 pilot who can keep playing until they get the shot they need. Just avoid HOs, that evens the fight.

Angus,

SOB was joking around. He knows that.

Yes the later Spits are good, and IMHO, they are too good to be introduced to the MA unperked. The Spitfire perfectly fits the play style of the MA.

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

batdog · « **Reply #26 on:** August 07, 2001, 01:51:00 PM »

The Spit had one major weakness in WW2...range. Thats it. If it had the range of the US fighters we'd of all been building spits out the ying yang. You put late model spits in the arena and your gonna hear some howling nodoubt.

xBAT

Pongo · « **Reply #27 on:** August 07, 2001, 02:11:00 PM »

Sad sad sad.
Now instead of a reasonable exchange about the need for a later mark spitfire you have a soap box for SW to flame his favorite whipping boys.
I guess the thread will be long if thats what you wanted Karnak.
I think the sheer undeniablity of the need for a 1944 spit is all that keeps the discussions short. Most of the blab in those LW aircraft discussions you apparently want to emulate with a Spit thread is nothing to do with really talking about the aircraft. Its mean allagations and chest pounding.
Like we have here now!

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #28 on:** August 07, 2001, 02:21:00 PM »

Pongo, you are clueless. Perhaps if they hadn't gone off on their tangent about how LW planes are superior and Spitfires are easy to fly, I would of only added stuff about Spitfires.
-SW

Karnak · « **Reply #29 on:** August 07, 2001, 02:21:00 PM »

Pongo,

I haven't seen much chest pounding here. I also don't see any "SWulfe fodder". I fear you may be a little "gun shy" after being attacked, wrongly I must say, by him a few too many times.

A late war Spitfire would be nice for those who have the Perk Points to pay for it. I really don't think that the late war Spifires will be anything besides perked.

I guess a Spitfire LF.Mk IX might not be perked, but it would be the new "most hate and whined about aircraft in AH".

In any case, what it boils down to is that we should have accurately represented Spitfires in AH. It was one of the most important types of aircraft in WWII and it is very common in AH, even if many of those who fly it are unfamiliar with its "stats".