Myth: SpitXVI is "slow"

[BnZs]

A charitable interpretation would be that he thinks it's best if most aircraft can either out-turn or out-run their opponent.  Some exceptions are ok, but when an airplane can out-run and out-turn as many as the XVI, it should be perked.  (Acceleration has to be given some weight too, or the argument won't work)

Yep, that is pretty much what I am saying Anax, with some wiggle room for planes that would seem dominating from an energy/angles standpoint but suffer some fairly debilitating weakness(s). For instance, the Ki-84, somewhat similar in basic performance to the Spixteen, but nearly everything can disengage from the Ki by diving.

Or take the unperked Hogs, a very good aircraft family in speed and maneuver, but they do suffer from rather low HP/weight relatively speaking.

[BnZs]

Try taking less than 100% fuel in the P-51D, it brings it up to dang close to the Spit IX.  The La-7 and N1K2 are both superior at MA alts.  The P-38J and L are superior.  Ki-84 is superior.  Bf109G-14 and K-4 are vastly superior.  Fw190D-9 is superior.

Karnak, I thought all of DokGonzo's measurments used less than 100% fuel.

Edit: Factually, according to Gonzo's chart the 38L is similar to 3K, where the SpitIX begins to out-climb it.

Now you're calling an aircraft with production of over 5,000 starting in mid 1943 a "dubious uber-plane that was built in tiny numbers during the last 5 minutes of the war"?  Ok.  I think the Ta-152, Me163, F4U-1C, C.205, 3 cannon La-7 and N1K2-J come far, far closer to that than anything in the RAF set.

No Karnak, I was not talking about the SpitXVI, I was talking about aircraft people have proposed adding to counter the La7 and SpitXVI. I can only imagine what would happen if they added a Dora that went 400mph at SL and had more cannon...sheesh.

[BnZs]

spixteens are .50 cal fodder for me 1-hog...nuff said.

Skyrock, the F4U-1 is not one of those planes that falls into my argument, being as maneuverable as a Spixteen. And faster. Most Spixteen pilots will have no idea how to use the advantage of their plane against yours, the E side of things being somewhat counter-intuitive, while you are one of the more experienced fighter pilots in Aces High. So your comparison really doesn't mean anything, other than "Skyrock owns", and we already knew that.

[SkyRock]

Skyrock, the F4U-1 is not one of those planes that falls into my argument, being as maneuverable as a Spixteen. And faster. Most Spixteen pilots will have no idea how to use the advantage of their plane against yours, the E side of things being somewhat counter-intuitive, while you are one of the more experienced fighter pilots in Aces High. So your comparison really doesn't mean anything, other than "Skyrock owns", and we already knew that.

it really doesn't  matter what plane, it's the pilot and his ability to judge E, convert angles, and smoothly perform air combat manuvers to attain a gun solution that is important.

[moot]

BnZ why didn't you answer HT's question?

[Ack-Ack]

BnZ why didn't you answer HT's question?

Because the Emperor has no clothes.


ack-ack

[BnZs]

BnZ why didn't you answer HT's question?

Anax answered it for me. Pretty much when one fighter type has just about every advantage relevant to a2a over many of the other types under typical MA conditions, I think a closer look should be taken at perking it.

[hitech]

Bnz: I would like an answer to my question from you.

HiTech

[BnZs]

it really doesn't  matter what plane, it's the pilot and his ability to judge E, convert angles, and smoothly perform air combat manuvers to attain a gun solution that is important.

Once the level of basic competence is reached, a condition of double-superiority will make a huge difference in the likely outcome. I don't think Shaw was making things up when he said "Double-superiority is a condition for which a fighter pilot would gladly trade several semi-essential parts of his anatomy". AHII player's views on the matter are probably skewed by the fact that much of the player base is more poorly trained in fighter tactics than the greenest imaginable fighter pilot sent into combat.

[BnZs]

Bnz: I would like an answer to my question from you.

HiTech

Hitech, I think it is fairly clear what I'm saying. When you have an aircraft like the SpitXVI or La7, able to run down so many other fighters while simultaneously out-turning, out-climbing, and, in the case of the SpitXVI, even out-rolling them, and when it lacks any severe weaknesses that mitigate its a2a abilities like a dive limitation or a weak gun package, I think there is a good chance it should be perked. I can not see why that concept is so hard to understand or why it is considered unreasonable.

EDIT: Just to illustrate the opposite side of the coin, if you had a fighter that was insanely popular but was not superior to many types in  speed, E-building, AND turn performance, I'd say it does not need perking. The P-51D actually comes close to being just that. And I can understand certain special cases, like perking the C-Hog so that *something else* will actually be seen coming off carriers.

[moot]

I'm not talking for anyone else here, but given the context (the plane set and players) it's unreasonable to perk the 16 when it's so slow.  That's too much of an achilles' heel. The same way the La7 has the speed but falls just a bit short almost everywhere else. The F4U4 is the nearest analog to the 16. It has the speed that the XVI would need to be perk-worthy, and the only factor to mitigate that crucial difference is that it takes a (slightly more than) minimum amount of know-how to exploit its abilities.  That amount of know-how is small enough that a large enough portion of the players can master it, and would cause too much unbalancing (one more arbitrary) in the MA if the U4 wasn't perked.

All these qualitatives and quantitatives are really vague, but they're my frank assessment and I'm fairly sure I'm spot on.

[BnZs]

I'm not talking for anyone else here, but given the context (the plane set and players) it's unreasonable to perk the 16 when it's so slow.

Ah, now we come to an impasse Moot. It is difficult to call an airplane slow when it is faster than 2/3rds of the plane set.

If we want to limit our discussion to LW non-perked planes only, that is reasonable I suppose. But the SpitXVI is as fast or faster than about 1/3rd of them too.

If we want to arbitrarily dismiss nearly everything slower than the XVI from the LW non-perked set so as to argue that the SpitXVI is too "slow", that is NOT reasonable. 

[moot]

It's not about being slower than 2/3ds of the plane set.  The XVI is too slow to be perk worthy.  That criteria implies that 1/3 of the plane set should be perked.

[Guppy35]

I actually find the spitVIII a bit more of a problem against my 38G than the XVI,  just my opinion though

that's cause the Spit VIII will hold off stalling and dropping a wing longer then the XVI due to the full span wing.  If I get in a turn fight with a 16, more often then not he'll drop a wing first, have to level out and nose down and he's dead.

[BnZs]

It's not about being slower than 2/3ds of the plane set.  The XVI is too slow to be perk worthy.  That criteria implies that 1/3 of the plane set should be perked.

Uh, no Moot. It only implies that if you are thinking of perking things on the basis of speed alone. Which clearly I am not. To put it simplistically, what I'm looking at/concerned with is the ability to out-run *and* out-maneuver numerous other types.

By way of contrast, look at the D9. Leaving aside the La7, it is the fastest unperked plane down low. It has a very competitive climb rate, good gun package, and stellar roll capacity. However, it is for all intents and purposes out-performed in turn by almost every other fighter in the game. This is what leaves it out of perk contention IMO.