Author Topic: OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?  (Read 2220 times)

AKSeaWulfe

  • Guest
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2000, 03:00:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by juzz:
D-9 is 2000lbs heavier than A-8? I'd like to see that source.

mmm... teaches me to read the wrong entries. :-) I read normal loaded weight on D-9 and empty weight on the A8. Hence the 2000lb difference. Actually the A8 is 9,656lbs and the D-9 is 9,480lb. My mistake on the weights. The rest is still accurate though. Source for the data is: The complete book of fighters. by William Green and Gordon Swanborough. Published by Smithmark. GOod reference material for every fighter from 1915 until present.
-SW


Offline -lynx-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 340
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2000, 04:27:00 AM »
Pongo - what is it you don't agree with? How exactly are you arriving to Spit IX getting it's armanent upgraded somewhat (4 .303s swapped for 2 .50s) and suddenly becoming a '44 fighter?

What kind of warped logic is this? The whole idea behind this upgrade was to give at least some chance to a '42 plane in the skies full of FWs. I don't like XIV myself (didn't like it in WB rather) but lets at least keep the argument factual - IX is a '42 fighter in (largely) '44 planeset.

USAF has at the moment 3 of their best fighters of the war. IJA - 2 of their good ones. Russia, Italy and Germany - (La-7 is needed!!!) in a very similar position.

RAF planeset comprises '41 and '42 birds. And no matter the amount of squeaking about Dweebfires etc all one has to do (if not in a Spit that is) is to point the nose down and disengage...

------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF

[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 06-24-2000).]

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2000, 07:00:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by AKSeaWulfe:
mmm... teaches me to read the wrong entries. :-) I read normal loaded weight on D-9 and empty weight on the A8. Hence the 2000lb difference. Actually the A8 is 9,656lbs and the D-9 is 9,480lb. My mistake on the weights. The rest is still accurate though. Source for the data is: The complete book of fighters. by William Green and Gordon Swanborough. Published by Smithmark. GOod reference material for every fighter from 1915 until present.
-SW


So you are telling me that D9 has a slightly lower wingloading than A8, and that it has a much better powerloading most of the time (expecially over 15K).

AKS, to extend tail and nose doesnt make a plane to roll worse, a bigger wing would do that (Ta152H lost much of the 190's rollrate because its extended wingspan). so if D9 has same wing as A8 how come it rolls worse? it makes no sense.

Besides, the better powerloading with the same wingloading (in fact a bit lighter), should make D9 to have a BIGGER turnrate than A8, not less!!!

Low on the deck D9 is 2 mph faster than A8? well yes. But it has much better acceleration, not to talk about climbrate. And MW50 helps. believe me.

The only thing I'd miss from an A8 in D9 would be the 4x20mm loadout (already missing it in A5 as I dont load the MGFF) and the radial engine endurance to damage. Otherwise the plane is way better, at all altitudes, than A8 and A5.

YOu say it turns worse? I doubt it. But anyway who wants to turn tight in a 190?

Me not  


------------------
Ram, out

Fw190D9? YEAH BABY, YEAH!!!
JG2 "Richthofen"

     

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-24-2000).]

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2000, 07:18:00 AM »
Lynx, I could be wrong, but its my understanding that Pongo is correct and that the Mk IX's didn't start getting the .50's until '44, which makes it a 1944 aircraft if you carry that load out.

Just like everyone considers the F4U-1C a "1945" aircraft, even though it is really a late 1943 aircraft with just an armament change.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2000, 07:48:00 AM »
A 1944 Spitfire IX would have 150 octane fuel. We don't have that, we have a 1942 plane with the wrong armament options. I'd gladly trade the E guns for the historically correct B and C armament options. Far from being a 1944 plane, it's not even as good as a standard 1942 Spit IX should be.

Offline pzvg

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2000, 08:07:00 AM »
Not to help or hurt this little row y'all got going,seeing as I fly every plane available(and badly too) but it occurs ta me that if you have a little patience you will get the bird you are wishing for,Hell I want early war types myself, would they be competitive in the MA? not a chance, would I have fun trying ta blow someone away in a long-in-the-tooth P40B? Oyas mon, most definate  
Wait a while,see what's coming
And remember, I can beat your Ferrari in my VW, 'cuz I'm not afraid ta take it outta first  

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

Offline Fariz

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1087
      • http://9giap.warriormage.com
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2000, 09:26:00 AM »
The weapon race.  

Spit IX is still a good weapon, but it requires much more skills for a successful flying now, when there are so many late war planes. It was not many spits in the air even before 1.03, unless as a field defenders, now they are very few.

I will fly it anyway, even if air will be full with me262 and no other spits. I flyed a5 and found it a much better b&z weapon than spit9 is at the moment, but I felt guilty when I saw my spity left in the hangar, standing alone in the falling darkness...  

Fariz


Offline Wanker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4030
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2000, 09:34:00 AM »
Not to throw water on this hot topic, but remember that the next two aircraft are going to be the Lancaster and the JU-88.

Mebbe it's time to take a break from fighter production over at HTC until we get at least one bomber for each country already modeled.

After the JU-88 and Lanc are created, we still have no Japanese, Russian or Italian bomber.

I have no idea what a good choice for an Italian bomber would be(Stormo Caccia guys help me out here), but I can think of two good choices for the Japanes and the Russian:

Kawanishi H8K2 "Emily"

Tupolev TU-2


Offline Replicant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2000, 09:43:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo:

The XIV is a contemporary of the 262 and the D9.
But good luck.

In a purely innocent query, why is the XIV a contemporary of the 262?  I would have thought the Meteor would be that?

'Nexx'

NEXX

Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2000, 09:44:00 AM »
So it is down to a simple conclusion:

While US planes are represented by their best 1944 planes, neither RAF or Luftwaffe have their best 1944 planes modeled in AH.

RAF misses its Spit XIV and Tempest, Luftwaffe misses 262 and Dora.



Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2000, 10:47:00 AM »
I will let my comment stand.
You cant have it all ways. The G10 is a 190G6(1942) with a different blower. The A8 is a 190a5(1942) with better wing cannons and 1000lbs(guesstimate) of ballast.
Ask for your ride if you want but it is nothing to do with the Luftwaffe planes.
Dont even get started on 150 octane fuel. If you try to give late MkIX and Mk XVI stuff to the spit crowd they will roast ya alive.
I just respond when I see the because you have this and they have that we need this argument.
But I have to admit. The Spit IX is not the plane it once was in the MA. I feel it is still spectaculare but other planes there now are great matches for it.
Karnak. I am sorry that I seem to be fated to disagree with you on this. But I am sure that with the later evolving plane set you will get your ride soon.
I will bow out of this thread so that we dont just repeat what has allready been said.
<S>


[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 06-24-2000).]

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2000, 12:20:00 PM »
Nashwan to say that all (or even more than a tiny fraction) of 1944 Spitfires used 150 octane fuel is down right ludicrous.


------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

Offline Soulyss

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6558
      • Aces High Events
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2000, 01:40:00 PM »
I don't think the arena needs a Spit XIV, it's not a matter of what year these planes were introduced but more a matter of is the Spit IX still competitive in the MA right now.  I have to say yes, it can still out turn most other aircraft baring the Zeke I imagine and even in that case the spitfire I would imagine (since I don't fly it) could out dive, outrun, and generally beat the zeke in other catagories besides turn radius.  It's just my opinion of course and if you disagree that's fine by me I'm not hear to tell anyone they're wrong but at least in my eyes the Spit IX can still get the job done.  

------------------
 

"Smoke me a kipper boys, I'll be back for breakfast"

[This message has been edited by Soulyss (edited 06-24-2000).]
80th FS "Headhunters"
I blame mir.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2000, 03:29:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo:
You cant have it all ways. The G10 is a 190G6(1942) with a different blower.
Put it that way and the Spit IX is just the V with a different blower. There is a huge performance difference between the G6 and G10, so I think that qualifies them as different planes.
 
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo:

Ask for your ride if you want but it is nothing to do with the Luftwaffe planes.
Agreed. It is strange that whenever somebody asks for a new RAF plane it is met with a chorus of "not till we get our Dora/Ta152/Go229 etc." The RAF has the oldest planeset in the game. That needs fixing. The Luftwaffe planeset is not as modern as the US set. That also needs fixing.
 
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo:

But I have to admit. The Spit IX is not the plane it once was in the MA. I feel it is still spectaculare but other planes there now are great matches for it.
Of the 3 RAF planes, 1 is the worst handling in the game (the Typhoon), 1 is the slowest(I think)(the Spit V), and 1 is a an all round aircraft that doesn't top the lists in any area.
 
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo:

Karnak. I am sorry that I seem to be fated to disagree with you on this. But I am sure that with the later evolving plane set you will get your ride soon.
It looks like any RAF aircraft from 1944 on will be a perk plane. Fans of German, American, Japanese and Russian planes will fly their 1944 aircraft to earn the right to fly a 1945 perk. Fans of the RAF will fly 1942 aircraft to earn the right to fly a 1944 perk. Not my idea of fun.


AKSeaWulfe

  • Guest
OK, the Yanks got theirs, the LWs got theirs, now how about an RAF bird?
« Reply #29 on: June 24, 2000, 03:43:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by RAM:
 
AKS, to extend tail and nose doesnt make a plane to roll worse, a bigger wing would do that (Ta152H lost much of the 190's rollrate because its extended wingspan). so if D9 has same wing as A8 how come it rolls worse? it makes no sense.

I never said extending the tail makes it roll worse. FIrst of alll, the D-9 *IS* the A8 airframe. Same wing area, wingloading, airfoil, everything. It just has 5ft extension placed between the fuselage and the tail section. THe thing that makes it roll worse is it's inline engine. In a radial engine you have much more centrigual force going a certain direction, thus giving you a faster rate of roll in one direction. The D9 is an inline engine, that does NOT necassarily have MW50.
 
 
Quote

Besides, the better powerloading with the same wingloading (in fact a bit lighter), should make D9 to have a BIGGER turnrate than A8, not less!!!
[/b]

This is just assumption here. Fact of the matter is, it's not just whatever you think powerloading is,(if you mean engine power, as in horse power.. well the 190D9 had the Jumo213A01 rated only 1,776HP(2,240HP w/emergency boost) while the A8 was 1,700HP(2,100hp emergency boost)Not much of a difference in power-- doesn't really support bigger engine=better turning, and the fact of the matter is that the 190D-9 is a mere 330lbs lighter than the A-8 doesn't mean it's going to all of a sudden be a better turner. The distance between the wings and the tail alone should indicate to you it's not much a turner, but you insist that more power(not much) and more wing area(eh? it has the SAME sized wings as the A-8, no difference there) and less weight(330lbs) immediately make it a candidate for turning better. In real life, just sticking a bigger engine on a smaller airframe doesn't make it a candidate for turning wickedly fast. It all comes down to wing AREA, or surface area. If the wings aren't large enough to grip onto the air in those turns, then the airfoil is going to lose it's air feed and thus stall out. Haven't you noticed when you stall in AH you're plane's wings aren't gripping the air as well? You're tugging on that stick, but your wings aren't doing much so you are moving 45degrees down from where your nose is pointed.

I'd like to see some figures/anecdotes that you are pulling your ideas from. I've produced mine, now lets see yours. I'll guarantee you that 190 D-9 is not going to be on par with this 190A-5 as far as turning goes. You've got one high speed pass and a small turn before you leave that planes flight envelope, and it's not medium-low alt fighter. That thing was built for way up in the sky, why else would they give it a paddle blade prop?
-SW
AKSeaWulfe+