The SpitXIV conundrum

[BnZs]

Yes, and?

The Ta-152 does not present an insurmountable problem for virtually any ride in the set except perhaps a 190-A8. Nearly everything has an advantage in turn rate/radius, speed, thrust/weight, or a combo of these to play against the 152. This is clearly not the case with the SpitXIV, which is as fast or faster than many "elite" rides in speed while being enormously superior in the turn, climb and accel.

 This is true to a lesser extent for the SpitXVI, although in the case of the XVI the real speed burners are not effected. Instead, the "middle-of-the-road" rides that would offer a nice balance of speed and maneuvering potential if they weren't in an arena chock-full of SpitXVIs find their viability greatly reduced.

[moot]

You isolate the spit16 from the context here.  You say the F4U4 isn't worth unperking for the reason that it'd give noobs a crutch.  Then apply the same reasoning to the spit16 (that it's no good reason to keep it unperked "because it's a good noob crutch"). But the spit16 isn't an F4U4. They're both at different spots on the performance spectrum. "Context"

The noob crutch argument doesnt fall flat on its face because the spit16 is both much more forgiving to a noob's flying (stick yanking), and because the spit16 lacks some qualities to really make it perk worthy.. The first one prolly being that it's too slow.

The Ta-152 does not present an insurmountable problem for virtually any ride in the set except perhaps a 190-A8.

I think that's exagerated.. It sounds like the 152 can't consistently be competitive against anything but the A8.  The 152 isn't the only plane that isn't insurmountable for anything but the A8.

[Karnak]

BnZ,

None of your arguments are getting any traction for the simple reason that it isn't imbalancing.  Anybody reviewing the kill and death totals each tour can see that.  No matter anything you say that remains true as it was not for the F4U-1C and very likely would not be for the F4U-4.

[BnZs]

BnZ,

None of your arguments are getting any traction for the simple reason that it isn't imbalancing.  Anybody reviewing the kill and death totals each tour can see that.  No matter anything you say that remains true as it was not for the F4U-1C and very likely would not be for the F4U-4.

Karnak, by reviewing the k/d totals we can learn that the P-38J is vastly more deadly than most planes in the arena, including the almost identical P-38L! If you do not understand why this neatly demonstrates that k/d numbers do NOT tell the tale, then I despair of you.

[Lusche]

*sigh*

And that's why you shouldn't take K/D as a sole, isolated argument.
Again I can only say: It's the whole picture that's counting.

[BnZs]

And that's why you shouldn't take K/D as a sole, isolated argument.
Again I can only say: It's the whole picture that's counting.

No, what the airplane can do is what counts. Usage can be skewed by all manner of irrelevancies. For instance, do you realize that a large measure of the popularity the P-51D enjoys  and the Ta-152's lack of popularity can be traced to Soda's write-up on each, both of which contain debatable and out-of-date information? Yet they are airplanes that can be flown with similar effectiveness in a similar style. K/D can be skewed by in similar ways; For instance, the P-38J anomaly, or the fact that a large portion of the C-Hog's success is due to it being used as a vulch machine.

[Lusche]

No, what the airplane can do is what counts. Usage can be skewed by all manner of irrelevancies. For instance, do you realize that a large measure of the popularity the P-51D enjoys  and the Ta-152's lack of popularity can be traced to Soda's write-up on each, both of which contain debatable and out-of-date information? Yet they are airplanes that can be flown with similar effectiveness in a similar style. K/D can be skewed by in similar ways; For instance, the P-38J anomaly, or the fact that a large portion of the C-Hog's success is due to it being used as a vulch machine.

Ok.. then tell me what factor os consistantly skewing the Spit 14's K/D AND usage numbers over all these years?

There could be two reasons:
- Either it overall performance has some issues that make it a difficult plane to employ
- Or it's simply skewed by a huge number of less gifted (=n00b) pilots that simply wreck it's stats

[BnZs]

Ok.. then tell me what factor os consistantly skewing the Spit 14's K/D AND usage numbers over all these years?

There could be two reasons:
- Either it overall performance has some issues that make it a difficult plane to employ
- Or it's simply skewed by a huge number of less gifted (=n00b) pilots that simply wreck it's stats

First, I'm the one who said the XIV's perk price is too high in relation to the other perk rides, although the reason I say this is the inexplicably quirky handling which does *not* resemble anything I've read in pilot reports about the SpitXIV.

That said, I'm quite sure your latter reason is in fact part of the Spit14's problem. I'm sure the "Spit" label attracts a great deal of people who are going for their very first ride in a perk plane. And k/d is heavily influenced by the *style* an airplane is flown in. You can rack up huge k/d numbers in practically anything fast using the very tentative style common to Tempests say...I suspect more XIV pilots are looking to fight, whether or not this is a good idea  in the ride they've chosen. The fact that the SpitXIV is faster by a good margin than the C-Hog yet has a lower k/d ratio is interesting to me. I think it strongly indicates that C-Hog is frequently used in a "safer" style, including vulching off a CV.

That is why I would like to see k/t for various models. Kills/time ratio is often a better measure effectiveness in both pilots and planes, although it can also still be skewed by vulching.

[Karnak]

Karnak, by reviewing the k/d totals we can learn that the P-38J is vastly more deadly than most planes in the arena, including the almost identical P-38L! If you do not understand why this neatly demonstrates that k/d numbers do NOT tell the tale, then I despair of you.

I said totals, not ratios.  The Spit XVI is not overused.

Further, your ongoing excuse that the P-51's fame explains its high usage applies just as much to the Spitfire.  It isn't overused and it doesn't break the arenas.

Heck, I'd be better off if it was perked as it is the bane of the Mossie VI, but I still don't think it is perk worthy.


Nor is the Mk XIV, for what its worth.  That one has consistently trailed free units in K/D ratios, the only perked unit to manage that.

[BnZs]

I said totals, not ratios.  The Spit XVI is not overused.

Further, your ongoing excuse that the P-51's fame explains its high usage applies just as much to the Spitfire.  It isn't overused and it doesn't break the arenas.

Heck, I'd be better off if it was perked as it is the bane of the Mossie VI, but I still don't think it is perk worthy.


Nor is the Mk XIV, for what its worth.  That one has consistently trailed free units in K/D ratios, the only perked unit to manage that.

There is no "over-used" or "under-used". If for instance, 75% of the LW MA chose to fly the 190 A-5, that would be if anything to the advantage of the other players who chose something else, and I would see no need to do anything about the situation. Well, I might formulate a theory that AHII was causing mass insanity, but I digress... Conversely, there are good planes that are under-used...like the Ta-152. Should we raise its ENY to 40 just because most people are unfamiliar with the fact that it is a pretty good ride?

The same method of ranking a plane's attributes, developed by a squaddy of mine who is a trained statistician, that revealed just how much better the SpitXVI is than everyone gives it credit for also revealed that the P-51D is more mediocre than I thought. I was a little dumbfounded by how low the P-51 ranked, but the side by side comparison does not lie. I also think its telling that the P-51D is the one plane I feel I can tackle with an A-5 or D9 and walk away with a victory most of the time against the typical MA opposition. The same cannot be said of a Spit16. This says something profound about how much or how little each plane will do for the pilot.

Then there is the fact that a write-up on the most popular AHII information site called the P-51D (I kid you not) the "best non-perked plane"  I respect the time and effort that went into Soda's evaluations and generally they are are gold mine, but I think calling the P-51D the best non-perker was a gaff on the order of the Kiss disco album , and has surely given hundreds of noobs the idea that the P-51D is more plane than it really is.

Good point about the Mossie. The Mossie is one of many planes whose viability is effected by SpitXVI ubiquity. Want to give non-masochists a fighting chance to fly something in the LW besides 1. A Spit16, 2. An Uber-runner, or 3.An Uber-turner? Then regulate the number of Spit16s.

[Karnak]

re: Spit XVI vs Mossie VI.

There are multiple other aircraft that, skill being equal, mean death to a Mossie.  Perking the XVI would only slightly change that as most of them would go to the Spit VIII, which is only slightly less deadly to the Mossie.

Assuming the other player knows what they are doing, the following free aircraft mean a quick death for me, in rough order of difficulty, harderst at top:

La-7
Typhoon Mk Ib
F4U-1A
F4U-1D
F4U-1
Bf109K-4
Spitfire Mk XVI
Bf109G-14
Ki-84-Ia
Spitfire Mk VIII
La-5FN
Yak-9U
Bf109G-2

[BnZs]

re: Spit XVI vs Mossie VI.

There are multiple other aircraft that, skill being equal, mean death to a Mossie.  Perking the XVI would only slightly change that as most of them would go to the Spit VIII, which is only slightly less deadly to the Mossie.

Assuming the other player knows what they are doing, the following free aircraft mean a quick death for me, in rough order of difficulty, harderst at top:

La-7
Typhoon Mk Ib
F4U-1A
F4U-1D
F4U-1
Bf109K-4
Spitfire Mk XVI
Bf109G-14
Ki-84-Ia
Spitfire Mk VIII
La-5FN
Yak-9U
Bf109G-2

La7? I destroy or drive them off with a Jug more often than they destroy me. I'm no Mossie pilot, but from flying against Bat I was under the impression it was at least as nimble as the P-47. The Kurt and Yak are not actually superior to the Lala, although they are typically manned by better pilots. In any case, fighting them is nothing like what you run into when you have to force a knife-fight with the Spits...who may make horrendous mistakes angles-wise but still retain the turn rate to swap ends and come on  with Hispanos blazing at your face.

It is interesting, but every single plane you ticked off here is inferior/inferior or similar/inferior to the SpitXVI and or SpitVIII*, according to the standard definition of that term. Only the late model 109s and perhaps the Ki seem to be similar (again, using the standard definition of that term) in energy performance at typical MA alts. Note here that the Spit series retains E amazingly well under Gs, which makes the E performance relative aircraft that do not retain E this well better in actual dogfights than the on-paper figures would lead one to believe. And of course, these late-model 109s are decidedly inferior in wing-loading/turn performance.

The F4Us you name arguably the most formidable of the lot vs. the Spit, the Hog can turn an extremely small radius, while being decidedly inferior in thrust/weight. But the caveat must be added that the sustained turn rate of the Spixteen is decidedly superior to that of the F4U, and the full-flaps radius is only a few feet larger. So even giving the F4U the nod for superior angles performance is debatable.

IMO, the F4U, 109 G-2, or Ki-84 are the best bets for taking on the Spit. The latter two are still seem to be double-inferior, albeit not terribly so. Obviously piloting decides a lot, and Spits are often horribly flown. Still, I think given equal pilots and an equal footing, the Spit can drive off or destroy all three of these contenders a majority of the time.

Karnak, I do not argue from a position of ignorance. I think I know the potential of these planes pretty well. I have tangled with them all, in the MA and in practice fights. If I am grossly in error regarding performance facts somewhere, please point me to to the appropriate data.


*Say what you will, the SpitVIII's glacial roll rate is a decided disadvantage stacked up against the SpitXVI's top-of-the-line roll under most MA conditions. The potential for insane and hard/impossible to follow guns defenses in particular are so much higher for the XVI than the VIII

[Saurdaukar]

So... would now be a good time to start talking about the A5's sea-level speed handicap?

...or should I wait?

[Kazaa]

Some people on this forum have way to much time on their hands, you've just got to pick apart each others posts!

Make love, not quote wars!

But on a serious note, the XIV, in it's current state shouldn't be perked. HTC should just try it for a week or two, I'm sure it would make a lot of people happy!

Now if the XIV was clipped and had 21lbs boost... that's another story. (also give the P51-D 75 MAP, Spitfire XVI 25lbs boost or add a VIII with clipped wings and 25lbs boost)

I know, I'm a cheeky bugger!

[Karnak]

Well, which aircraft I would be wary of in a Spit XVI is a much shorter list.

As to your La-7 experience, I said equal pilot skill.  Skill being equal, the La-7 should dominate the P-47 or Mosquito, but in practice skill is usually not equal.

Also, I don't follow how those aircraft are all double inferior to the Spit XVI.  The La-7 is, for example, much faster and has a similar climb rate and acceleration.  Certainly the F4Us don't accelerate well, but they are fast and very responsive.