PDA

View Full Version : Spit XIV



Eagle_493rdLN
07-18-2004, 07:38 AM
Somone is making Spit XIV? It is good plane, we need it so Briten has a good plane to equal damn late Luftwafe planes 1944-1945.. now we have only 1941-1943.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

I see Tempest V.. is very good, but Spit XIV too plz!
ty

Eagle_493rdLN
07-18-2004, 07:38 AM
Somone is making Spit XIV? It is good plane, we need it so Briten has a good plane to equal damn late Luftwafe planes 1944-1945.. now we have only 1941-1943.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

I see Tempest V.. is very good, but Spit XIV too plz!
ty

OldMan____
07-18-2004, 08:25 AM
SPit MKiX is more than a match to 44 german planes!! In 43 is the best plane.. simple as that.. in 44 is stilla very very good plane.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

VW-IceFire
07-18-2004, 09:16 AM
Here is the situation gentlemen. This is the last forum post we have at Netwings (currently on the first page) that mentions the progress on the Spitfire XIV. Link: http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1013.html

Unfortunately, after that we have not heard word. We've seen several fantastic renders indicating that the textures and primary level of details seem very close to being finished. A cockpit was also inconstruction and was actually the basis for the Mark V and IX ones we have now (aside from a gyro gunsight, I doubt much had changed).

I have now PM'ed and e-mailed the modeler Fievel to see how things are going and to ask if he needs assistance from us. I haven't heard anything back so things are not looking terribly good right now. I DO NOT want to pester him either so I will not be sending any more messages unless he responds.

I guess I sort of want my cake and then be able to eat it too...but I very much want a Spitfire XIV. Its my favorite mark and while I want the Tempest V more...the two are close relatives and were often part of joint operations (Spits covering the high, Tempests down low). Plus in those online dogfights...I can't help but think what a XIV would be able to do that my IX is not capable of doing. The IX is more than capable of taking on all customers in the 1943 to 1944 range but throw in the Ki-84's, the FW190D-9's, the Bf 109K-4's, and it makes me want to have a XIV just to turn the tides on them a bit.

I still have a bit of hope that we'll see the XIV materialize at the end. But we'll see. If anyone wants to try and further support the endeavor to get this in game...do so. Ideas welcome.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Eagle_493rdLN
07-18-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>online dogfights...I can't help but think what a XIV would be able to do that my IX is not capable of doing. The IX is more than capable of taking on all customers in the 1943 to 1944 range but throw in the Ki-84's, the FW190D-9's, the Bf 109K-4's, and it makes me want to have a XIV just to turn the tides on them a bit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah you say true things!

ty for the link

WOLFMondo
07-18-2004, 02:41 PM
This plane is much needed. The LW crowd have the K4 and D9 and those jet things:P, the Russian crowd have the Yak3, 9, P63 and La7, the US crowd have there p51D, P47D and P38L...the Brits have there mid war Spitfire IX's.

We want are XIV!

(i'll settle for a Tempest V howeverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

MEGILE
07-18-2004, 03:09 PM
Tempest V + Spitfire XIV is a good team vs. 109K4 and D9.. no? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I just hope the Western front is finished (B-25, Tempest V, Spitfire XIV, JU88 etc.) before Oleg finaly desides to move all recsources away from FB...
Dont get me wrong Pacific Fighters is gonna be fun, but I like going toe to toe against the Late Luft-boys.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

Countdown to 1337 post count = P minus 174

faustnik
07-18-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_493rdLN:
Somone is making Spit XIV? It is good plane<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the biggest understatement I've heard in a while. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

VW-IceFire
07-18-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Tempest V + Spitfire XIV is a good team vs. 109K4 and D9.. no? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I just hope the Western front is finished (B-25, Tempest V, Spitfire XIV, JU88 etc.) before Oleg finaly desides to move all recsources away from FB...
Dont get me wrong Pacific Fighters is gonna be fun, but I like going toe to toe against the Late Luft-boys.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

Countdown to _1337_ post count = P minus 174<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think we'd make the USAAF boys a little jealous with the graceful lines of the Spitfire XIV and the agressive and powerful look of the Tempest V http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

biggs222
07-18-2004, 10:50 PM
ur darn right it was a good plane.
Top speeds for the mkXIV (MPH)
439 @ 24,500ft
404 @ 11,000ft
274 @ 30,000ft
220 @ 35,000ft
357 @ Sea Level

Rate of Climb
4,580 ft/min @ Sea Level
3,700 ft/min @ 22,500ft
Time to 20,000ft 7 min

Stall w/ flaps up 85 mph
Stall w/ flaps down 75 mph

And to top it off the mkXIv had the same turning characteristics matching the mkIX in test flights.

one hellova fighter.

Source "Spitfire The History" by Morgan and Shacklady.

WUAF_Badsight
07-18-2004, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_493rdLN:
Somone is making Spit XIV? It is good plane, we need it so Briten has a good plane to equal damn late Luftwafe planes 1944-1945.. now we have only 1941-1943.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

I see Tempest V.. is very good, but Spit XIV too plz!
ty<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

omg dude . . . . do you even play FB at all ?

i mean seriously , there is only so much wool you can try to pull over peoples eyes lol

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
07-19-2004, 12:48 AM
Check out the jpg's in this thread, It shows just how good the XIV is compared with other allied fighters. Its only let down by its range but apart from that, its outstanding.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=348102545

WUAF_Badsight , the IX is a mid war plane that can compete with late war planes, that doesn't mean we can't have the late war Spitfire. It is the last major production variant after all. All the other allied and axis fighters have there late war production variants in FB, its only fair to put the Spitfires in.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

MEGILE
07-19-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>WUAF_Badsight , the IX is a mid war plane that can compete with late war planes, that doesn't mean we can't have the late war Spitfire. It is the last major production variant after all. All the other allied and axis fighters have there late war production variants in FB, its only fair to put the Spitfires in.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, no one can deny the importance of the Spitfire in the western theatre... the 109s and 190s get many variants, due to their undeniable relevance and importance, so the Spitfire should follow suite.
The P-47 too.. but thats for a different thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
When Pacific Fighters comes out I imagine that only planes such as the Tempest V and Spitfire XIV and B-25 would inspire me to continue to play IL2FB.. apart from that I don't have much interest in the Eastern Front anymore...

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg
Help the forces of Megile fight in Kings of Chaos! (http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=h4i9c2ha)

dadada1
07-19-2004, 06:18 AM
The Spitfire XIV is an absolute must have for this sim, if it ever gets there it's going to be the one to beat. P 47s have been done to death in other simulations so it's not really in the same league. Its quiet obvious from your sig you have no interest in the Eastern front, but there have been more attempts to place sims with air combat in the West. There are others such as PE2, Il 10, Ju 88 that should have priority over P47s.

MEGILE
07-19-2004, 06:40 AM
Yeah no doubt there is a list as long as your arm of planes which "SHOULD" be added to the game... most have people fighting in their corner for them.. so Im standing up for the planes I would like http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg
Help the forces of Megile fight in Kings of Chaos! (http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=662q9av2)

WOLFMondo
07-19-2004, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>WUAF_Badsight , the IX is a mid war plane that can compete with late war planes, that doesn't mean we can't have the late war Spitfire. It is the last major production variant after all. All the other allied and axis fighters have there late war production variants in FB, its only fair to put the Spitfires in.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, no one can deny the importance of the Spitfire in the western theatre... the 109s and 190s get many variants, due to their undeniable relevance and importance, so the Spitfire should follow suite.
The P-47 too.. but thats for a different thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
When Pacific Fighters comes out I imagine that only planes such as the Tempest V and Spitfire XIV and B-25 would inspire me to continue to play IL2FB.. apart from that I don't have much interest in the Eastern Front anymore...

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg
http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=h4i9c2ha<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've been fighting in the eastern front for some time, a western and Pacific front give this sim a breath of fresh air as do the plane that flew in those.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

OldMan____
07-19-2004, 07:17 AM
I would agree that MK XIV is needed IF we could get our 190 real modelled.. not that #@!$!@$!@ behavior and energy conservation they have. Even the best 190 is worse than ANY gustav.

So I would say yes.. TEMPEST + MK-XIV + REAL 190!!! + ANY P47N or M they want.

But speaking seriously.. do you really think MK IX is not capable of winning on a K4? I fly Luft planes most.. and when I fly the Spit I find it much better (HISPANOS ROX)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

MEGILE
07-19-2004, 07:24 AM
Its not realy a question of can a midwar SpitIX beat a late war 109-K4... its like saying could a 109-G2 beat a P-51D20NA.. ofcourse its possbile...
but consider all of the 109 Jocks anger if everything past the G-6 was removed.. :P
No doubt they would be unhappy without that darn G-6A/S killing machine hehe...

A spitXIV would bring the RAF in line with the late war planes for other nations.. it be cool from a realism point of view.. and would mean we would equaly be flying planes from the same time period, as well as flying one of the best variants of the Spitfire.

btw.. you wanna talk about energy conservation? go fly the P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg
Help the forces of Megile fight in Kings of Chaos! (http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=662q9av2)

Kurfurst__
07-19-2004, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
But speaking seriously.. do you really think MK IX is not capable of winning on a K4? I fly Luft planes most.. and when I fly the Spit I find it much better (HISPANOS ROX)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s capable of winning, of course, but the odds are heavily in the K-4s favour. Something that the Spit IX can`t match is the K`s brutal acceleration and speed advantage - 40 to 70 km/h at all altitudes.. If the fight is prolonged and both sides slow down in a turn/manouvering fight, the Mk.IX has an acceptable chance to win.. but usually I can finish them off quickly with the MK 108. That`s also what my quick fights AI vs. AI also show - the K-4 overpower the MkIX quickly, they only loose if they mess up the initial good chances. Not to mention the K isn`t to be taken lightly on the manouvering side either - well applied barrell rolls at high speeds can be a fate of any Mk IX easily, and personally, I didn`t notice breathtaking differences in horizontal manouveribilty eiter, nothing that wouldn`t make pilot skill more important than plane specs.

With the Mk IX you can rank up a nice number of kills in turning furballs, but with the K-4 you can survive as long as you want and evade every time it`s neccesary. A smart pilot can dictate the terms in it every time. It`s the biggest difference IMHO.

When the Mk XIV comes, it will much more of an adversary to the K-4, because climb and speed specs are much more closely matched. Be warned though, the XIV carries a lot more weight than the Mk IX, don`t expect the same manouveribility from it.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

OldMan____
07-19-2004, 07:41 AM
Funny.. The only plane I cannot beat in AI offline while flying My 109 is the Spit MK- IX .. I can beat even the LA7.. but not the Spit. Maybe is just something that I make wrong whle fighting them.. Also I take count of my deaths online... 64% are to Spitfires, 32% to P51 and the rest for the rest.

But as I said.. no problem with betrer spitfires.. just give me the dammit corerct 190 (is even worse than P47.. since P47 was never supposed to be an excelent dogfighter.. while the 190 does)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

MEGILE
07-19-2004, 07:48 AM
Whether you consider something to be an excellent dog fighter or not, it doesn't make the figures regarding dive acceleration and energy retention any less inaccurate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

There are problems both for the 190 and P-47 undoubtly...

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg
Help the forces of Megile fight in Kings of Chaos! (http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=662q9av2)

WOLFMondo
07-19-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
When the Mk XIV comes, it will much more of an adversary to the K-4, because climb and speed specs are much more closely matched. Be warned though, the XIV carries a lot more weight than the Mk IX, don`t expect the same manouveribility from it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say its a real match for the K4 or any other allied or axis aircraft because it can perform well at all altitudes, somthing thats quite rare in a WW2 fighter plane. There more often than not specialised for one task or another. Its probably the ultimate piston powered interceptor in WW2.

Im not sure what the weight difference is but the Griffon 61 is 800lbs heavier than the Merlins used in the IX but the power difference is huge. I guess theres some balast in the tail which is extended but going by the RAF test results for it, its still and excellent turn fighter but is also a great bnz'er.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

OldMan____
07-19-2004, 08:56 AM
I never disagreed that P47 does not dive correctly in AEP. Just stating that 190 is completely UNUSABLE in the way it was suposed to.

P47 is not as good as should be in dive.. but is still quite good (better than gustavs) and about equal to 190 (think should be something better than 190 in that aspect).

A great advantage of Spit is that it does not have visious handling like 190 or 109 does. it is smooth.. while it can still give a destructive punch with 2 hispanos.

I feel that probably the MK XIV should probably behave more like a later gustav.. loosing a little bit more energy.. but with grater acceleration.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

WOLFMondo
07-19-2004, 09:45 AM
The whole dive thing is a limitation of the IL2 engine though. I wouldn't say the 190 cannot be used as it should however.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

faustnik
07-19-2004, 10:13 AM
Back to the most frightening of all Spifires:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/DoraComp.gif

Just plain nasty! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

faustnik
07-19-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The whole dive thing is a limitation of the IL2 engine though. I wouldn't say the 190 cannot be used as it should however.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly can be used in B&Z fassion, but, you have to extend more in the horizontal than the vertical.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

MEGILE
07-19-2004, 10:55 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Top speed - 717KM/H

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

WOLFMondo
07-19-2004, 11:26 AM
Its range is horrible though. Its 37 ltr griffon engine burns somthing like 1 gallon of fuel a minute at full power. No wonder it climbs so well and is that fast, it guzzles enough fuel to send a modern family car around the planet a few times in a matter of a couple of hours.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

ST__Spyke
07-19-2004, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo: the Russian crowd have the Yak3, 9, P63 and La7, the US crowd have there p51D, P47D and P38L...the Brits have there mid war Spitfire IX's.

We want are XIV!

(i'll settle for a Tempest V howeverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

last time i checked the P-63 was an american plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but yes a late war british plane (partocularly the spit) would be great

_____________________________
A hero is no braver than any other man, he's just brave 5 minutes longer...

My Skins (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=Spyke75024&historicalidfilter=all&searchkey=&action=list&ts=1086288095)

WOLFMondo
07-19-2004, 12:01 PM
I put it under Russian planes cause they used them extensivly and seemed to like them more then the US.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
07-19-2004, 12:59 PM
p63 was hardly used by americans in a conflict, if at all.

is the wing loading wrong? its got 100ish over a p51 and a d9 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

but damn that climb is amazing.
griffon sounds lovely too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/duxford/Dxfd_04/ on the vids u can hear them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

one flew over my house, and banked round, was a blue pr with Dday stripes, just cruisin for fairford i guess, but mmm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. the fuel consuption is worth the sound, be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

biggs222
07-19-2004, 02:46 PM
wow those videos are amazing ping, the mkXIV sound so mean in FB the merlin sounds more like a lawn mower http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif.

thanks for sharing....man id kill to go to a Duxford airshow, is it anual?

KGr.HH-Sunburst
07-19-2004, 03:52 PM
with the current E bleed on the FW190A/D and that fluffy roll rate i really hate ,we are going to be dog meat for those spit MkXIV http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

another funny thing is,should a P51 outclimb a D9 on a certain altitude ?
ingame they seem to outclimb me on any altitude
also the P51 listed top speed on the deck is 581kph in game i can get close to 595Kph (OT i know but i was just wondering) its allready hard to keep an advantage over the P51 ,now with that spit mkXIV coming its gonna be even harder http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NM i like a challenge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
anayway bring it on ,its the only spit i like and i like that tempest mk V even more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sunsigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

OldMan____
07-19-2004, 04:07 PM
I dont dislike the rolling.. You can control that with joystick tunning.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

p1ngu666
07-19-2004, 04:09 PM
its anual i belive, i sadly didnt shoot that vid/pics. was someone off forum i forget there name http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

E bleed is worse for the jug, and the jug cant climb either, 190 is decent/good at climb.

oh and i can be effective in a 190 at times, dont see why anyone else cant http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

faustnik
07-19-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
190 is decent/good at climb.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 190 is good at many things, but, climbing ain't one of them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But, the only reason I put up that stat sheet was to illustrate the level of performance that the Spit XIV brings to the table. Truly an awesome fighter!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

MEGILE
07-19-2004, 04:26 PM
CC, the only thing the Jug has going for it is that if you're easy on the stick you can do 950KPH and not break apart... apart from that, you got nothin' hehe but I still love that plane...
Better hope you got some Luny bandit on your 6 who is stupid enough to push the plane to the red line http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

biggs222
07-19-2004, 04:27 PM
the mkXIV may own on paper but when "good" planes make it to FB they dont always perform up to their stats, hopefully we wont be let down if and when we fly it in FB.

p1ngu666
07-19-2004, 04:37 PM
its way better than a jug, atleast ingame. the 190 ingame is fundimentaly supiour i think, i think a5/6 are similer.

in jug once in combat i hardly ever back off power, u really fly on the limit in combat in that plane... or i do http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

give it a go if u dont belive me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

MEGILE
07-19-2004, 04:45 PM
Yeah it does kinda feel outclassed by contempory fighters... you just have to pick your fights VERY carefuly, go in get the hell out and disapear for 10 mins while you recover your alt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

Nexus2005
07-19-2004, 04:54 PM
I really do hope we get the XIV very soon, as people have said before it just isn't fair that everybody else get their late war planes except the British (the Germans even get the 109Z and Me262 for crying out loud!). It's about time for us to be able compete with the lufty boys on euqal terms using aircraft from the same period.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

VW-IceFire
07-19-2004, 05:00 PM
First I have to say that the FW190 is the best (of the two http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) Luftwaffe fighter types available. I know most people fly the 109 but whenever I go up in one I fly around for a bit, do my thing, come back and get a FW190 for the rest of the round. The roll rate doesn't bother me and its a very impressive fighter in the strict BNZ regime. Nothing beats a FW190 at high speeds zooming down on the target and giving it a blast of 20mm fire. Its another matter if you are at a disadvantage (alt or e)...then you turn and run.

And the FW190D-9 you can stall fight with I've found. Takes a real sensitive touch...but its the horsepower that makes it. One of the best fighters in the game.

Anyways, off on my little tangent. The Spit IX is not at all comperable to the FW190D-9. I've fought the two together and I know I'd rather be in the D-9's shoes than the IX's. Both constitute my favorite fighters on either side so I'm experienced with both. So this is why I long to have a XIV. More than that however...the dogfight rooms ignored for a second...I prefer mission building and such favorites as the XIV, Typhoon, Tempest, and Mosquito are sorely needed for a more complete ETO experience.

I've done my best to try and rouse the modeler. Without a response either way (he's dropped it and we need a new modeler, or he's nearly done it, or whatever) its hard to proceed.

Again, suggestions from the community would be nice if you have any. I don't have the skills or talents required to get this guy in-game...but I know how to stir a teapot if someone has a stiring stick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

MEGILE
07-19-2004, 05:03 PM
http://www.armchair.com/store/gourmet/amish/aspoon1.jpg


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

cc, Spit XIV for president!

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

faustnik
07-19-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Again, suggestions from the community would be nice if you have any. I don't have the skills or talents required to get this guy in-game...but I know how to stir a teapot if someone has a stiring stick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talk Gibbage into it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
07-19-2004, 05:14 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
im not sure if gibb has surcomed to the spit magic...

im not sure how far the XIV has got either
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
i really like the line of the lower cowl on griff spits aswell http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

VW-IceFire
07-19-2004, 05:25 PM
Great videos too Pingu...the lines on the 14 are amazing as they fly past at a fairly good rate. I was impressed to see so many Spitfires operating at the same time...just wow...I WANT TO GO TO DUXFORD http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

p1ngu666
07-19-2004, 05:45 PM
me too, i WOULDA gone but promotion was rubbish, didnt say they would have em there
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

OldMan____
07-19-2004, 06:34 PM
Just one point.. when you guys get your tempests and Spit 14.. you have the best RAF had in war.. so you must start not complaining when Luft guys use theirs 262. if one side can have the best of their planes from the war.. the other can also.

Whanna see your precious tempests reach a Me262 :P 4x mk108 ..I must cry.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

VW-IceFire
07-19-2004, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just one point.. when you guys get your tempests and Spit 14.. you have the best RAF had in war.. so you must start not complaining when Luft guys use theirs 262. if one side can have the best of their planes from the war.. the other can also.

Whanna see your precious tempests reach a Me262 :P 4x mk108 ..I must cry.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh thats fine...I fully intend to take the XIV and the Tempest V up against the Me 262 and the best that the Luftwaffe has to offer.

Just so long as you guys don't mind us base camping and shooting the jets on takeoff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

biggs222
07-19-2004, 07:34 PM
i duno im starting to feel like we may never see fievels mkXIV...its been such a long time since anyones seen him, AND i asked Hammerd how the pplane was doing and if he finished skinning it, he said he had no idea of the status of the mkXIV and also that he hasent talked to fievel in ages... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

OldMan____
07-19-2004, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just one point.. when you guys get your tempests and Spit 14.. you have the best RAF had in war.. so you must start not complaining when Luft guys use theirs 262. if one side can have the best of their planes from the war.. the other can also.

Whanna see your precious tempests reach a Me262 :P 4x mk108 ..I must cry.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh thats fine...I fully intend to take the XIV and the Tempest V up against the Me 262 and the best that the Luftwaffe has to offer.

Just so long as you guys don't mind us base camping and shooting the jets on takeoff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no problems.. we just need some 190 Dora 12 to keep your planes at bay while we land.. :P

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

VW-IceFire
07-19-2004, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just one point.. when you guys get your tempests and Spit 14.. you have the best RAF had in war.. so you must start not complaining when Luft guys use theirs 262. if one side can have the best of their planes from the war.. the other can also.

Whanna see your precious tempests reach a Me262 :P 4x mk108 ..I must cry.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh thats fine...I fully intend to take the XIV and the Tempest V up against the Me 262 and the best that the Luftwaffe has to offer.

Just so long as you guys don't mind us base camping and shooting the jets on takeoff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no problems.. we just need some 190 Dora 12 to keep your planes at bay while we land.. :P

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Done and done http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yes I'm worried for the XIV too. Alternative options? When did you talk to Hammered last? Was there possibility for him to attempt another contact with Fievel? I know I asked him to before and it did get some attention.

If the project is going to be dropped...then we should try and find another to move in quickly and do what we can. If its not...then we wait.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

KGr.HH-Sunburst
07-19-2004, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
E bleed is worse for the jug, and the jug cant climb either, 190 is decent/good at climb.

oh and i can be effective in a 190 at times, dont see why anyone else cant http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hhhmm first i think the Jug is a bit heavier dont ya think so it should bleed more E when in the horizontal right?
besides the jug wasnt that good fighting down low infact it was bad as a fighter at lower alts ,while the FW190 was ,and should be a better fighter than the 109 (easier to fly IRL)
that doesnt really show ingame IMO infact its kinda **** when you dont have any alt/speed advantage and any late 109 OWNS a 190 on equal level

now that doesnt mean im not succesfull in it
infact i do very good in a dora but i always seem to do better in a 109G/K P51 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

just my 1/2 euro cent

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sunsigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

WUAF_Badsight
07-19-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:


A spitXIV would bring the RAF in line with the late war planes for other nations.. it be cool from a realism point of view.. and would mean we would equaly be flying planes from the same time period, as well as flying one of the best variants of the Spitfire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

obviously YOU dont play FB

cause we already have a Spitfire that is as good as the late war German planes

the Mk9

its god-like

not to mention no overheating over 2K or amazing E retention

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
07-19-2004, 10:30 PM
the 2400 Hp Spitfire Mk22


http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5811/Spit22.jpg

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
07-19-2004, 10:32 PM
the last update on the Spit Mk14

im feeling sorry for the hun already

BAN IT !


http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2816/spit1a.jpg

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fw-190D-9
07-20-2004, 12:18 AM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

biggs222
07-20-2004, 12:29 AM
Ice if u goit the simHQ forums and scroll down to Hammered B-25 skin thread i asked him there....its was about 4 days ago.

WOLFMondo
07-20-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:


A spitXIV would bring the RAF in line with the late war planes for other nations.. it be cool from a realism point of view.. and would mean we would equaly be flying planes from the same time period, as well as flying one of the best variants of the Spitfire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

obviously _YOU_ dont play FB

cause we _already_ have a Spitfire that is as good as the late war German planes

the Mk9

its god-like

not to mention no overheating over 2K or amazing E retention

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But thats the mid war Spitfire.

Thats hardly a valid argument for not having it in. Imagine if the K4 was left out or the D9 was left out. The luftwhiners would be spamming this forum until they got it. Its not like its a plane that never flew or was a prototype, this was a major production variant used by the RAF in the PTO and ETO as a front line interceptor and the high alt partner to the Tempest V.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

dadada1
07-20-2004, 06:03 AM
As a Luftwaffe fan, hopefully not a whiner the Spit XIV has to be included theres no reason at all for it's exclusion. Its the best looking Spit, probably the only one I'd fly and would really get my heart going flying against it. That and the Tempest V, rather these than any other allied types. So whats needed to get it in game? money. If that what it takes then where do I send my cheque? Any other takers? We have to have both of these.

MEGILE
07-20-2004, 06:05 AM
I guess its all been said.. Spitfire XIV please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>obviously YOU dont play FB

cause we already have a Spitfire that is as good as the late war German planes

the Mk9

its god-like

not to mention no overheating over 2K or amazing E retention <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO I love it when people tell me what I do and do not play.

OMG the G2 is uber, get rid of the G-10,G-14 and K-4.. the Luftboys don't need em, as they already have a decent 1942 ME-109 which can stand up to 1944 allied planes... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW quit *****ing about the overheat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.. sure it may take a while, but the cool down period MORE than makes up for it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif


Well if you feel that way about the Spitfire IX then god help you when we get the XIV http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif See you soon on a dogfight server in XIV... maybe

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

VW-IceFire
07-20-2004, 07:18 AM
Last night while reading my recently ordered and purchased The Big Show (Pierre Closterman) which had to be shipped from the publishers of the English version from England here to Canada (evidently I got one of 12 books of the 2004 hardcover print left) I came across a great series of sections regarding the Luftwaffe VS the RAF in the late stages of the war. The Luftwaffe is generally discounted at this stage but Closterman has a great deal of respect for them.

He specifically notes that the FW190D-9, the Bf 109K-4, the Ta-152, the Me 262, and the He-162 (lesser extent on the last two) were a very very serious challenge to the RAF. In particular, the Spitfire IX was to him now considered inadequate in that it didn't have enough speed or power to compete with these fighters. He suggested that should the German fighters choose to stay and fight the IX then it had a chance but in a high speed situation...the K-4 and D-9 were far superior.

In FB, its the same situation. The IX is got alot of staying power...but in a strictly speed based battle...the kind you find in a co-op and not in a dogfight server, the D-9 and K-4 have the advantage.

Closterman felt that the XIV went to address this problem (its speed also being very impressive) and that it along with the Tempest V were the RAF's answer to these late war types. The problem with both the Tempest and XIV being that they were available in small numbers initially while the German types were much quicker in showing up.

Fascinating read and very true to our discussion here.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

p1ngu666
07-20-2004, 07:21 AM
in a 10whine, u can cool off with 99% power and closed rads if u doing roughly 300+

atleast in my little test http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

MEGILE
07-20-2004, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>in a 10whine <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

p1ngu666
07-20-2004, 12:18 PM
theres also 1whinety http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

MEGILE
07-20-2004, 12:35 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
07-21-2004, 01:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
OMG the G2 is uber, get rid of the G-10,G-14 and K-4.. the Luftboys don't need em, as they already have a decent 1942 ME-109 which can stand up to 1944 allied planes... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW quit *****ing about the overheat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.. sure it may take a while, but the cool down period MORE than makes up for it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif


Well if you feel that way about the Spitfire IX then god help you when we get the XIV http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea that attitude is exactly why you guys dun need the extra performance

already you got enuff to match the 44 & 45 LW

as for that stupid G2 comment ..... exactly how fast does the K4 & G2 go again ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

oh & stop mentioning the Overheat you say . . . whys that ? its wrong .....

you like it the way it is do you ? , if their is one thing that is the single most annoying thing about these forums , it has to be the "one plane/country/side" types

im guessing your "happy" with the K4s elevator or the entire FW-190s climb rates http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MEGILE
07-21-2004, 06:22 AM
Again Badsight you are persuming to tell me what I do and do not fly... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
I fly the FW-190D9 1944 online all the time.. that plane rocks.. but does this mean I should not ask for a Spitfire XIV? or a Tempest V?

Ofcourse the G2 comment was stupid, it was meant to be, my point was... just because the MK IX can stand up to late war Germans, is far from any valid argument that the XIV should not be added...
The G2 performs excellently, it is a true adversary.. but in your logical thinking, surely then you don't need the G-10 and K-4... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

As for the K4 elevator.. i realy could not comment as I do not fly this plane much... so if there is a problem.. go argue your case http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Look buddy, I'm not here to complain about German planes, far from it... im here to ask for more British planes... you are bringing the whole negativity bro http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

VMF513_Sandman
07-21-2004, 08:56 AM
according to il2 compare's charts, the g-2 at max throttle(if i'm reading this right) its capable of getting to 650 kmh. from about 6500 meters and down, climb rate averages from 22-25.5 meters a second.

from what i see in il2 compare, the a6m2/5 and p-38's is about the only real threat to the g-2 in climb rate. and the higher the g-2 goes, the more it gets into the forktailed devil's playground. it looks like the jug's will outrun the forktailed bird starting at 9000 meters, but how many fights ever get that high

WOLFMondo
07-21-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:

you like it the way it is do you ? , if their is one thing that is the single most annoying thing about these forums , it has to be the "one plane/country/side" types<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to troll or flame but every post you've made in this thread pretty much says your one of the "one plane/country/side" types:/

You don't want to see a perfectly valid addition to the plane roster because the allied plane set already has enough to take on the 44/45 LW?!?!?

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

MEGILE
07-21-2004, 12:14 PM
Exactly Mundo, what kind of reason is "you already have planes which suffice"... hell if that rule applied we wouldn't have so many ME-109s...
Like I said before, we are't here to troll or flame, and whine about German planes.. we are here to ask Oleg et al. for a Spitfire XIV.. just our simple little request.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

OldMan____
07-21-2004, 03:23 PM
Just remember be carefull with requests. Think is not the case.. but imagine if MK 14 was a so BETTER plane that no german plane could win it. So it would spoil YOUR fun.. since no one would like to fly in Blue.. so no Opponent for RED.

Because that I dont fly VVS planes anymore.. is not fun.. no opposition.. and everyone think you win because of the plane.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

crazyivan1970
07-21-2004, 03:25 PM
You don`t fly VVS planes because there is no opposition? You must be really good then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

MEGILE
07-21-2004, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just remember be carefull with requests. Think is not the case.. but imagine if MK 14 was a so BETTER plane that no german plane could win it. So it would spoil YOUR fun.. since no one would like to fly in Blue.. so no Opponent for RED.

Because that I dont fly VVS planes anymore.. is not fun.. no opposition.. and everyone think you win because of the plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary, the Spitfire XIV wont exactly be uber, and I expect many of the luft-boys to be looking forward to the fighthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

Bull_dog_
07-21-2004, 04:57 PM
The 14 could climb and outclimb most (maybe all...but not sure) late war prop planes and retained its turning abilities where many late war aircraft lost theirs. It was not the fastest up high, but as fast or faster than anything but the Mustangs and 109K's...Down low, I think it was good but not the best in class.

Given the weakness of FB energy modelling, I think this plane would be regarded as fairly uber by most if properly modelled. If dive/energy were better modelled, I think one of its weak points (diving) would be more apparent...unfortunately, fb just doesn't do this well at all so an aircraft whose strength or weakness was in the dive would not be affected by that variable.

In FB climb, top speed, turning circle and firepower seem to be the top attributes for online success. Dive doesn't enter the equation very often and rate of roll doesn't seem to account for much except where extremely fast rolling planes meet extremely slow rolling planes. Damage modelling seems important, but for the most part, there are a couple of ufo-like damage models but most are suseptible so I see this as a factor but not definitive. Visibility is a non-factor in ww view and even in **** pit servers I don't think there is such a huge advantage as was in real life with visibility.

Yes the Mk 14 would be a dominant force in FB if modelled correctly...not one that had to be flown just so to be successful but one that could reverse the situation on an enemy due to its climb and turning circle.

WOLFMondo
07-21-2004, 04:57 PM
The XIV's weakness is its roll, range and dive acceleration compared with its LW counterparts. Its still a great plane and I envision lots of whines about it being the new n00b plane etc etc. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

MEGILE
07-21-2004, 05:08 PM
Yeah maybe some peeps will call it uber, but personaly, I couldn't care less.. I will be happy in my Spit XIV http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Now-a-days people will call something Uber just for having a single attribute which is better than its counterparts.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

p1ngu666
07-21-2004, 05:12 PM
XIV should be better in a dive than merlin spits, and if u go really fast itll blast past most things
cos its wings http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

VW-IceFire
07-21-2004, 06:53 PM
There's some strange fear that the XIV would be so much superior that it would make flying less fun? Thats not a valid concern in my book. For all of us Spitfire fans, the XIV is the sort of pinnacle of the Spitfire during the war (although a few MK 21's were available, a minor point) and a worthy adversary with the K-4 and D-9. It was fast, fairly well armed, and retained the manuverability of previous models. It wasn't leaps and bounds above the Luftwaffe's best...but it put the RAF on a very even footing with those late war types.

Thats all thats being asked for. Nobody should expect the XIV to be a super fighter...

I recall there was concern that the P-51D would wipe the Luftwaffe flyers out in droves with its superior everything...which never materialized and happened. It was good in its own right...but life isn't any different really.

Nobody should be fearing the Spitfire...everyone should be supporting the members of our community in any way they can to bring these warbirds to the flyables list in any way possible. Its the same reason I'm pushing for the Italian fighters and aircraft or new Luftwaffe aircraft almost as strongly as the Tempest V. Its no fun just to have your favorites...but everyone eles's as well so that everyone is having the best possible experience.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WUAF_Badsight
07-21-2004, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

I don't want to troll or flame but every post you've made in this thread pretty much says your one of the "one plane/country/side" types:/
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

id LOVE to see the Mk14

this board has a lot of one eyed posters & someone has to be a voice of sanity

i fly all planes & i know exactly how the G6 stacks up to the Mk9

& im expecting the Mk14 to be as over-performing in critical areas as the Mk9 is in others

as far as that comment about the Mk14s turning goes ..... Wrong

lots of mk14 pilots liked there Mk9 more because it had better turning & handeling at the limits

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Panelboy
07-21-2004, 11:44 PM
I think the XIV will fly like a mustang, with better climb rate and less range. And yes, it will not retain the earlier mark's maneuverability.

WOLFMondo
07-22-2004, 12:56 AM
I think the info on this thread give a clear indication how it stacks up vs other allied fighters:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=348102545

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

dadada1
07-22-2004, 04:06 AM
I was reading comparison report yesterday which you can find here at the link below for a true evaluation comparison of the Spit XIV, Spit IX and the P51. The only problem I have with the Spit is that the Mk IX HF we have in game has a top speed of 437mph, (should be 416mph) way too fast. So where does that leave the Spit XIV which should have max of 448mph. In the report it says Spit XIV 25-35mph faster than the IX, which is what I would expect

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html

[This message was edited by dadada1 on Thu July 22 2004 at 04:18 AM.]

MEGILE
07-22-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(f) Rudder Trim As the Griffon engine revolves in the opposite direction to the Merlin, likewise the propeller, the tail trim, if not left central, should be wound back for take-off and not forward. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This I did not know..I wonder if Oleg will notice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
07-22-2004, 05:05 AM
i remember reading a story of a former SpitfireMkIX pilot about his first "take off" with a MkXIV - he didnt read the manual before http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

so far he NEVER flew a new aircraft again BEFORE checking the manual http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

dadada1
07-22-2004, 05:16 AM
I believe he was an Aussie who'd returned to the squadron after they'd re-equipped with Mk XIV's. I think the story is in the Osprey "Late Mark Spit Aces" book

Nexus2005
07-22-2004, 06:23 AM
From that excellent comparison that dadada1 posted:

When comparing the Spitfire XIV to the IX it says:
"The turning circles of both aircraft are identical."
"Rate of roll is very much the same."

So I expect the XIV to handle as good as the IX but with better speed, climb and dive capabilities http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

MEGILE
07-22-2004, 06:30 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

dadada1
07-22-2004, 06:45 AM
Yes, refering to that report the XIV should have the same turn circle as the IX, so theres no excuses for it being otherwise, only the stick force should be different. I hope we don't have any of the arbitrary, "Its a later model therefore its handling must be reduced" when it comes to the XIV's flight model. I would like the speeds of the IXs to have serious review though, look at Hundes findings on this page.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=470103755&p=1

VW-IceFire
07-22-2004, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panelboy:
I think the XIV will fly like a mustang, with better climb rate and less range. And yes, it will not retain the earlier mark's maneuverability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Incorrect. The XIV retained the turn circle and roll rate of earlier models without any penalities. This was in-spite of the increase in weight...and it was offset largely by the massive increase in power that the Griffon engine offered.

The Mustang IV (P-51D) achieves what it does through very clean lines and aerodynamics. The Spitfire XIV achives it through its good initial design and the massive power afforded to it by the engine. When pilots say that the IX or the VIII was the nicest to fly...its largely based on the "problems" with the power of the Griffon engine. Stuff like the takeoff and the torque that the Griffon produced. It wasn't always as pleasant to fly as the Merlin versions.

But not for a second will it be much different than the IX or the V in terms of overall turn rate. You probably will "feel" the weight...it'll throw around a bit slower than before...but it can do the same things.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

biggs222
07-22-2004, 11:45 PM
Ice is absolutely correct...the mkXIV had the SAME turning characteristics as the mkIX in tests done at Bosecomb Down.

so think of the mkXIV as a slightly heavier, faster mkIX http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Kurfurst__
07-23-2004, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Incorrect. The XIV retained the turn circle and roll rate of earlier models without any penalities. This was in-spite of the increase in weight...and it was offset largely by the massive increase in power that the Griffon engine offered.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Outside real world physics, it would be even possible. But not in real world.

People who are expecting to the Spit XIV to be just a tight turner as the IX will be grossly disappointed. It won`t be bad turner by any standard, in fact it will be pretty good and would still outmanouver most planes in the planeset.

Take off weight of the MkV Mk IX and XIV :

Mk V : 6695 lb
Mk IX: 7400 lbs
Mk XIV : 8500 lbs

Stall speeds :

Mk V : 73 mph IAS
Mk IX : 81 mph IAS
Mk XIV : 85 mph IAS


No tricks to get around that - turning circle is determined by the speed of the aircraft travelling, and the G it applies in a turn. Yep, the XIV and IX, and the P-47 can have the exact same turning circle, provided they travel the same speed and and apply the same G. But then, in this case the Mk IX would fly in a very pleasant and convinient manner, the Mk XIV would ride the very edge of the stall, and the P-47 would find it`s just dreaming. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The stall speeds, and weight tells it all. The Mk XIV has the highest wingloading of all of them, and the Griffon does not makes a big enough change to compensate for the much higher weight - it`s half a ton heavier.

Ie. _Sea Level_ powerloadings :

Mk 14 : 8500lbs/1840 BHP = 4.61 lbs / BHP
Mk IX : 7400 lbs / 1650 BHP = 4.48 lbs / BHP

Simple maths.

So at low levels the Mk IX is even slightly better in powerloading. Johnny Johnson himself said that his favourite was the Mk IX, as for him, the Mk XIV 'didn`t feel like a Spitfire anymore', and was less manouverable.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

WOLFMondo
07-23-2004, 04:14 AM
Im not disagreeing with your maths but why in that case does the RAF's own trials say that the turn of the XIV is similar to the IX? Trials and assesments still show the XIV to be a very good turn fighter anyway, certainly compared with its contemparies.

I also thought the Griffon 61 and 65 in the XIV put out 2050HP as standard? Thats what i've always read anyhow.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

Kurfurst__
07-23-2004, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Im not disagreeing with your maths but why in that case does the RAF's own trials say that the turn of the XIV is similar to the IX? Trials and assesments still show the XIV to be a very good turn fighter anyway, certainly compared with its contemparies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno, but I have a few guesses. Those AFDU trials are quite messy sometimes, often they provide quite wrong information. I guess their testing, comparision methods were just a bit easygoing. Perhaps they did a quick turnfight only, and asked the pilot in the XIV, how he feels about it, and he said like 'yeah I can pretty much keep up with him'. And so it goes to the report - in any case, friendlies vs. friendlies was not really cruicial to them.

I can also think that they meant sustained turns, not the best turns. In sustained turns, the difference should be quite a bit less than at hard turns. Morover, it depends a LOT on the altitude they tested it at. The Griffon/XIV was massively superior to the Merlin/IX at higher altitudes, being some 40-50 mph faster. At those altitudes, I bet the XIV was much better. At lower ones, I bet on the IX. And it could easily be, that they tested them at an intermediate altitude, where the turning abilities converged.

But I absolutely agree with the XIV being quite a good turner depsite it`s weight increase.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I also thought the Griffon 61 and 65 in the XIV put out 2050HP as standard? Thats what i've always read anyhow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that`s correct, but that`s the peak HP at a given altitude, IIRC around 2500m? Too lazy to look it up. The power output varies with altitude, at 0m it`s like 1840 or so, then it goes up at 2500m altidue to slightly above 2000 HP, then it falls again considerably, by several hundred HPs as we go higher, and then it peaks out again at 6700m or so at ~1700 HP. Then it`s start to fall again with altitude. It works this way because of the fixed gear, two speed supercharger of the Griffons/Merlins.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

hop2002
07-23-2004, 05:30 AM
Isegrim, you've used the wrong power figure for the Merlin. sea level power was about 1580 hp, not 1650.

That would make the powerloadings:

Mk 14 : 8500lbs/1840 BHP = 4.61 lbs / BHP
Mk IX : 7400 lbs / 1580 BHP = 4.68 lbs / BHP

Kurfurst__
07-23-2004, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Isegrim, you've used the wrong power figure for the Merlin. sea level power was about 1580 hp, not 1650.

That would make the powerloadings:

Mk 14 : 8500lbs/1840 BHP = 4.61 lbs / BHP
Mk IX : 7400 lbs / 1580 BHP = 4.68 lbs / BHP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I took the Merlin 66 from Neil`s static power chart which gives somewhere around 1650, also the chart he posted for V-1650-7 gives it as 1690. You are correct in that under rammed power the power output was ~1580HP at SL, but I don`t find 400mph ram (which the IX couldn`t even come close at SL) to be very representative of the power output during turning. Unfortunately, no accurate unrammed charts for the Griffon exists.

In any case, there was not much of a difference between powerloadings at low level - the Griffon`s extra power could keep up the powerratio at best, not increase it.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

VW-IceFire
07-23-2004, 07:08 AM
Certainly you have a point Kurfurst. The plane is heavier and the stall speed is going to be a bit higher. You will ride the edge of a stall more in a XIV than in an IX for the same manuver. RAF reports still indicate, although you are welcome to dispute them, that the XIV retains its manuverability and roll rate in comparison to earlier models.

Even if the performance is different...the relative closeness means that against its contemporaries...the result is the same. I would expect to, in-game, have a lighter hand on the joystick than with the IX or the V. You can feel the difference between the V and the IX as well. They don't turn quite the same...the V is easier to throw into a turn. So its not QUITE the same...but its very close.

So when I say that they retain their manuverability, turn circle, and roll rate...I'm going off of the reports that I've read. I haven't done any math...I'm not sure if you have either or just pulling the numbers from the reports either. I'm not a qualified aeronautics engineer...I'm paraphrasing.

Certainly by that point in the war...keeping up with the FW190D-9 and Bf 109K-4 was most important. And the XIV could still turn with or out turn its opponents.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can also think that they meant sustained turns, not the best turns. In sustained turns, the difference should be quite a bit less than at hard turns. Morover, it depends a LOT on the altitude they tested it at. The Griffon/XIV was massively superior to the Merlin/IX at higher altitudes, being some 40-50 mph faster. At those altitudes, I bet the XIV was much better. At lower ones, I bet on the IX. And it could easily be, that they tested them at an intermediate altitude, where the turning abilities converged.

But I absolutely agree with the XIV being quite a good turner depsite it`s weight increase.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overall...I agree. Its not worth debating over...its very close http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WUAF_Badsight
07-23-2004, 07:18 AM
how do you figure pilots liking & saying the Mk9 was the better turner then IceFire

it _Didnt_ have as good ability at turn fighting as the Mk9

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

dadada1
07-23-2004, 07:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
how do you figure pilots liking & saying the Mk9 was the better turner then IceFire

it _Didnt_ have as good ability at turn fighting as the Mk9



.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this just an assumption based on the way FB chooses to penalise older or more developed aircraft or is it based on fact? If fact, can you prove it? Which is what Oleg would wish to see. I think I'm right in saying pilots felt the stick forces were higher, and the fact that pilots were used to the engine rotating in the opposite direction must have played a part in their assessment of the XIVs handling.

MEGILE
07-23-2004, 07:51 AM
Hell maybe the XIV won't be quite the turn fighter some people may have imagined, and it may well loose some of its meneuvrability through the added weight... but at the end of the day, this is NOT going to discourage us from asking for the spitfire XIV, so don't get your hopes up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The proof is in the pudding gents, and we can talk about in game performance.. when we get it in game, which we would hope is a realistic depiction.. warts 'n all!

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

Nexus2005
07-23-2004, 07:54 AM
You got actual pilot accounts that say it turns better Badsight? Even so, it probably did turn different as IceFire says and some pilots may have preferred the way the IX turns. That doesn't mean that the IX was actually significantly better at turning though, only different.

We do have this RAF tactical trials report that imo is much more likely to be carefully carried out and accurate than pilot accounts (also it is in it's interest to be as accurate as possible, otherwise it would have been a complete waste of time) and it says in black and white that:

"The Spitfire XIV gives less warning of a stall in a tight turn than a Spitfire IX, though the same pre-stall characteristic ("shuddering") occurs. This is a good point as it allows sighting to be maintained nearer the stall. This aircraft tends to come out of a dive in a similar manner to other Spitfires."
So it does indeed turn different to the IX as it's stall characteristics are different.

"The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV."
The turning circles are identical, therefore as far as actual capability goes both aircraft are very very similar. It's just that the IX gives more warning of a high speed stall.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

WUAF_Badsight
07-23-2004, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
but at the end of the day, this is _NOT_ going to discourage us from asking for the spitfire XIV, so don't get your hopes up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

we already got the Mk14 in FB ...... Maddox Games just labed it wrongly as Mk9 instead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

what makes you think that i dont want the Mk14 or Mk22

they are awesome A/C

some ppl on the first page tho , asked to have one on the basis to be able to fight LW 44 & 45 planes

on that basis alone , the Mk14 aint needed , as the overmoddeled Mk9 is more than enough

but that basis shouldnt be a deciding factor

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nexus2005
07-23-2004, 08:17 AM
Whatever your oppinions of how the mk. IX is modelled in game and no matter how good it is and how good it was, the fact still remains that Spitfire pilots are competing with German planes from 1944 and 1945 in Spitfires from 1943 at the newest. This is simply not fair.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

MEGILE
07-23-2004, 08:30 AM
Forget about performance now in game, put it out of your head, as you rightly say, performance over current models is not the deciding factor..

The fact is that the MK XIV was an important variant of the spitfire, and it rightly deserves a place in the game..
Whether the MKIX can handle the 44-45 LW planes.. its not the point, that question doesn't come into my mind.. but the simple fact is, we don't have a 1944 variant of the Spitfire...
hell dont you guys want to strive for realism, and make some more late-war historical planesets + expand the current planeset of FB?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm happy to see that you want the Spitfire XIV in game.. so lets not argue over that point... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
07-23-2004, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
Whatever your oppinions of how the mk. IX is modelled in game and no matter how good it is and how good it was,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

my "opinion" is based on the "fact" of how planes perform in FB . . . . right now

i love the Pony's & the Spit,s . . . . but just cause i like them doesnt mean im going to BS & say they are fine as they & that they aint overmoddeled in certian areas

thats what one plane/side/country Ahole fans do

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nexus2005
07-23-2004, 09:12 AM
Errr, I would certainly hope your oppinions are based on how the planes handle in the game otherwise they would be based on nothing. But is it based on historical fact?

What I'm getting at is it doesn't matter if the IX can fly against the late war German planes (it wouldn't matter if it completly outclassed them). The fact is that Axis get all their late war planes and then some, but Spitfire fans only get mid war variants.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

WUAF_Badsight
07-23-2004, 09:36 AM
last time i checked , FB was a simulation of the finnish / Russian part of FB

now 3rd party stuff has arrived that is WTO , all the WTO stuff "has" to be included aye ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Salfordian
07-23-2004, 09:41 AM
With PF coming out also (although personally I'm more concerned with flying in the Western Europe theatre), the fact that the MkXIV played a major role in the CBI theatre for the RAF in 1945 should add a bit more clout behind it being included in game.

WUAF_Badsight
07-23-2004, 09:41 AM
you do realise that not a single FW-190A is moddeled to WTO specs ?

they all is low powered , overweight ETO FWs

dont see yas asking for WTO FW190s so you get a proper fight now do we

same with the Hurricanes

i dont see the bleeding heart RAF fans up in arms over their lack of HP compared to the WTO RAF Hurricanes

(you guys fans of planes here ..... or is it performance that your really wanting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

wheres ya heart ......

wheres ya want for the game to be correct all round ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nexus2005
07-23-2004, 09:48 AM
I wasn't aware that the Hurricanes were not the same spec as western ones. I certainly would like to have some modelled with the extra horsepower. But I want to see the Spitfire XIV first, it is far far more important than a few more hp in the Hurricanes because it is such an iconic and important plane that is completly missing. All the other major nations have their late war planes, why shouldn't we?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> now 3rd party stuff has arrived that is WTO , all the WTO stuff "has" to be included aye ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif But seriously though, the lack of Spitfire XIV is a large hole in an otherwise great plane set imo because it was so important and the pinnacle of the Spitfire. Most other planes in the sim go from the early variants, right through to the late ones (especially the most famous ones). But the famous Spitfire goes from 1941 to 1943 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

dadada1
07-23-2004, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
but at the end of the day, this is _NOT_ going to discourage us from asking for the spitfire XIV, so don't get your hopes up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

we already got the Mk14 in FB ...... Maddox Games just labed it wrongly as Mk9 instead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

what makes you think that i dont want the Mk14 or Mk22

they are awesome A/C

some ppl on the first page tho , asked to have one on the basis to be able to fight LW 44 & 45 planes

on that basis alone , the Mk14 aint needed , as the overmoddeled Mk9 is more than enough

but that basis shouldnt be a deciding factor

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do have a valid point and one which I've been trying to draw attention to, but what I dont really understand is the way in which the MkIXs obvious speed discrepency is being ingnored or side stepped. What I've been trying to say over the last few pages without answer is where does that put the XIV in game. A lot of late war LW aircraft should have a speed advantage over the IX, it's the only advantage they have, but if they don't even have that in FB then how can we call this a sim. I think we'd all like to see the XIV, but lets aknowledge that there are inaccuracies with the current IX's, it's this lack of acknowledgement that I believe is causing frustration and therfore resistance to the XIV.

VW-IceFire
07-23-2004, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
but at the end of the day, this is _NOT_ going to discourage us from asking for the spitfire XIV, so don't get your hopes up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

we already got the Mk14 in FB ...... Maddox Games just labed it wrongly as Mk9 instead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

what makes you think that i dont want the Mk14 or Mk22

they are awesome A/C

some ppl on the first page tho , asked to have one on the basis to be able to fight LW 44 & 45 planes

on that basis alone , the Mk14 aint needed , as the overmoddeled Mk9 is more than enough

but that basis shouldnt be a deciding factor

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do have a valid point and one which I've been trying to draw attention to, but what I dont really understand is the way in which the MkIXs obvious speed discrepency is being ingnored or side stepped. What I've been trying to say over the last few pages without answer is where does that put the XIV in game. A lot of late war LW aircraft should have a speed advantage over the IX, it's the only advantage they have, but if they don't even have that in FB then how can we call this a sim. I think we'd all like to see the XIV, but lets aknowledge that there are inaccuracies with the current IX's, it's this lack of acknowledgement that I believe is causing frustration and therfore resistance to the XIV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since I haven't heard this argument please do tell us. How is the IX faster than its supposed to be?

Remember that there are many IX models and that the ones we have are the IX Late with the improved engine, higher boost pressure, and larger chord pointed tail. If you have specs of such a model and then can compair that to what we have them I'm all for accuracy. I know the radiator is a little bugged out (back and forth it has gone) but that aside whats wrong with it?

Regardless of that, the XIV would have its own flight modeling. So bugs that may persist in one would not necessarily be part of another. Example being the 109G-2 which many point out as being oddly superior to other models in ways that it perhaps shouldn't. Regardless of them being right or wrong (and in this situation as well) the fact that one of the 109's is a little off doesn't destroy the credibility of any of the others. So this point is entirely moot.

The IX was still flying during 1945...but it had been moved to the 2nd TAF and used mostly as a ground attack aircraft. Ground support was in need and the Spitfire XIV's were increasingly replacing the IX's for fighter missions. This shows you that minor margins of speed are important.

Furthermore, in combat...I tested a IX against a well flown FW190A-9. The A-9 known for being a little better on climb than most FW's and for being heavy and difficult to handle. I had speed advantage at 7000 meters. At 1000 meters it was roughly even (he was manuvering and I was able to maintain speed better at this alt). At all times during the lower altitude fight...if he flew smartly I could not catch him. In short dives, the IX is a little too good or the FW not good enough. Either way, in a prolonged Split-S and then dive...he had the advantage. And he shot me down at the end too (despite some battle damage I landed on him).

So this stuff about the Luftwaffe not being able to beat the Spitfire IX...or the numbers not matching seems to be very off base to me. In actual online play...smarly flown aircraft with experienced pilots shows the true power and performance of these birds and that the numbers aren't that far off.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WUAF_Badsight
07-23-2004, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
I wasn't aware that the Hurricanes were not the same spec as western ones. I certainly would like to have some modelled with the extra horsepower. But I want to see the Spitfire XIV first, it is far far more important than a few more hp in the Hurricanes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF ?!?!?!

the Hurricane served the ENTIRE duration of WW2

it got more kills during the BoB than ANY othe fighter

tell me how long the Spitfire Mk14 served again ?

is the Hurricane less important because its not as deadly in a DF server ? huh ?


.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

dadada1
07-23-2004, 10:32 AM
Look at Hundes findings on this page and the actual performance figures for the Mk IX variants and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=470103755&p=1

WUAF_Badsight
07-23-2004, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

So this stuff about the Luftwaffe not being able to beat the Spitfire IX...or the numbers not matching seems to be very off base to me. In actual online play...smarly flown aircraft with experienced pilots shows the true power and performance of these birds and that the numbers aren't that far off.

"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

all planes in FB (just about) have a over-performing climb rate . . .

all planes that is except for the entire Focke Wulf family

there are no WTO FW-190A's

the Spit Mk5 or 9 are not running to the ETO VVS specs

both spitfires have a slightly better than RL climb rate

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hop2002
07-23-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I took the Merlin 66 from Neil`s static power chart which gives somewhere around 1650, also the chart he posted for V-1650-7 gives it as 1690. You are correct in that under rammed power the power output was ~1580HP at SL, but I don`t find 400mph ram (which the IX couldn`t even come close at SL) to be very representative of the power output during turning. Unfortunately, no accurate unrammed charts for the Griffon exists.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't seen an unrammed Griffon chart either, so its fairer to compare the rammed Griffon with the rammed Merlin, isn't it? Like for like?

The Spit XIV had a better powerloading than the IX at sea level under rammed conditions, there's no reason to think that would be different under unrammed conditions.

Also, the stall speeds you are quoting are engine off. Engine on reduces the stall speed because of the extra airflow over the wings. That's at least going to close the gap in stall speeds between the IX and XIV, because the XIV is going to be pushing a lot more air over the wings with that huge prop and the extra power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>same with the Hurricanes

i dont see the bleeding heart RAF fans up in arms over their lack of HP compared to the WTO RAF Hurricanes
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've certainly complained about it in the past.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You do have a valid point and one which I've been trying to draw attention to, but what I dont really understand is the way in which the MkIXs obvious speed discrepency is being ingnored or side stepped. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't seen the figures for the latest patch, but the Spitfire IX in game appeared to be too fast, but also didn't turn as well as aircraft it was widely known to outturn, and couldn't climb with aircraft it should have outclimbed with ease.

In a recent thread with Isegrim, I compared the Spit IX climb rate to the 109K4. At a point where the Spit IX should have been equal with the K4, the K4 in game has an 8 m/s advantage.

The K4 climbrate is something like 40% better than it should be. The Spit is about 5% faster than it should be.

WUAF_Badsight
07-23-2004, 10:52 AM
without flaps , the Mk9 Spitfire could just beat the G6 Bf-109 w/o flaps in level 360 degree turns

v2.01

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
07-23-2004, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
I haven't seen an unrammed Griffon chart either, so its fairer to compare the rammed Griffon with the rammed Merlin, isn't it? Like for like?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like for like? OK. With your data :

Rammed powers
Mk IX. 7400lbs / 1580 HP = 4.68 lbs/HP
Mk XIV. 8500lbs / 1840 HP = 4.62 lbs/HP

Now let`s see wingloading, which is 1-1 related to the weight increase. 8500/7400 = 1.148, or in other words


The Mk XIV`s powerloading is 1.3% better than that of the Mk IX.
The Mk XIV`s wingloading is 14.8% worser than that of the Mk IX.

So I can`t figure out how will manouveribilty remain the same. But, applying the theory that even meaningless powerloading would increase greatly manouveribilty, let`s see:

109G-2 : 3037 kg / 1475 PS = 4.53 lbs / PS
109K-4 : 3362 kg / 2000 PS = 3.70 lbs / PS + 22.3%

K-4 has 22.3% (1.3%) better powerloading, but only 10.7% (14.8%) worser powerloading than the G-2 (numbers in brackets for the difference between MkIX and XIV).

So if things works as you say, the K-4 should be able to catch it`s own tail. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, the stall speeds you are quoting are engine off. Engine on reduces the stall speed because of the extra airflow over the wings. That's at least going to close the gap in stall speeds between the IX and XIV, because the XIV is going to be pushing a lot more air over the wings with that huge prop and the extra power.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they are engine off, `cos that`s what the Spit manuals only give. But you are defienietely wrong about engine on would reduce stall speed, on the contrary. The propellor wash will disturb the airflow over the whole area behind it, reducing the lift that can be generated -&gt; with engine on your stall speeds are much higher, 5-10 or so mph. And since "...the XIV is going to be pushing a lot more air over the wings with that huge prop and the extra power...", probably the difference is even greater.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I haven't seen the figures for the latest patch, but the Spitfire IX in game appeared to be too fast, but also didn't turn as well as aircraft it was widely known to outturn, and couldn't climb with aircraft it should have outclimbed with ease.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which aircraft it could not outturn/outclimb it could not in real life? If you mean the P-51, that`s correct, but more of a problem rooted in the Mustang being overmodelled, rather than the Spit being treated unfair.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In a recent thread with Isegrim, I compared the Spit IX climb rate to the 109K4. At a point where the Spit IX should have been equal with the K4, the K4 in game has an 8 m/s advantage.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno, you refer to your comparison with the prototype of the L.F. Mk IX series? Come on, get some real data of serial machines, not protties.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The K4 climbrate is something like 40% better than it should be. The Spit is about 5% faster than it should be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, at some altitudes, on the other hand, the K-4 is some 25 km/h slower than it should be. On the other hand, the Spits are up to 40 km/h faster than they should.

Despite the K-4 was historically some 60-70 km/h faster than the Mk IXs at most altitudes, in the game their speed is nearly equal. And not only that, speaking of climb rate, the Spit Mk V`s climb rate is the DOUBLE of what it should be at altitude, 100% more.

In other words, in the K-4 you can`t outclimb the Spit V which would you simply laugh at in a climb contest in RL, and could not outrun the Spit IX at altitude even despite in the real world the even K-4`s _cruise speed_ alone was higher than the MkIX`s all-out max. level speed.

Completely ridiculus, and I don`t see you complaining much about that all the time.


ICEFIRE,

The Mk XIV never really replaced the Mk IX in the fighter role - there were too few Mk XIVs around for that to happen.

Ie. the 2nd TAF had some 5 Squadrons with MkXIVs, and 30 Squadrons with MkIXs/XVIs. And note that 80% of all MkXIVs were concentrated into the 2nd TAF at that time.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

VW-IceFire
07-23-2004, 11:55 AM
True that in terms of pure numbers the XIV never truly replaced the IX. In terms of the thinking at the time...the IX was obsolete in the face of the newest of the German fighters (like the D-9) and that the XIV and the Tempest V were the only saving graces that the RAF had.

Certainly impressive that, even at a late stage of the war, Germany was able to produce the technical masterpieces that they had and in such quantities despite the military setbacks that they had encountered.

Also consider that the IX that was in use at the end of the war was a little more tweaked from what I've read than the ones earlier in the war. So more pounds of boost pressure, etc. Not sure how much difference that would make but a minor one perhaps.

I did a very quick test on the Spitfire IXc. Crimea map, 12:00 hours, fuel at 100%.

Here's the speeds:
Sea Level: 490kph IAS (304mph) = 316 mph
3000 Meters (9852ft): 480 IAS (298mph) = 352 mph
7500 Meters (24606ft): 370 IAS (229mph) = 381 mph

Maybe I was a little sloppy (not alot of time right now and I did wait to see if the speed would stop going up) but the IX doesn't seem to be even making its top speed of 404 mph as quoted by most sources.

For those who thinks its too fast...please do similar testing if you actually have a point to make.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

hop2002
07-23-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Yes, they are engine off, `cos that`s what the Spit manuals only give. But you are defienietely wrong about engine on would reduce stall speed, on the contrary. The propellor wash will disturb the airflow over the whole area behind it, reducing the lift that can be generated -&gt; with engine on your stall speeds are much higher, 5-10 or so mph. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, engine off stall speeds are lower than engine on.

With the engine off, at 80 mph the air speed is 80 mph. With the engine on, at 80 mph the air speed will be much higher in the prop wash, because the engine is blowing air over the wings.

Engine off stall speeds are lower than engine on stall speeds.

VW-IceFire
07-23-2004, 12:57 PM
I redid my test:
Sea Level: 512kph TAS (318 mph)
7650 meters (25,000 feet): 632kph TAS (392 mph)

Slightly better results than before. This time I properly flattened out and gave the aircraft time to get upto speed.

Tells me that the IX's maximum speed at best altitude (according to Squadron signal and a few others) is a few mph slow (listed as 404mph). At sea level its a few mph fast. Not bad overall...not a 20mph advantage.

Bring on the XIV.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

p1ngu666
07-23-2004, 01:46 PM
doesnt engine on stall speed be higher if u have power going to prop, like say full power?

Icefire, the late war german planes didnt/couldnt fly as much as they would like cos of lack of fuel, and the quality wasnt very good at all.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

biggs222
07-23-2004, 01:47 PM
MKXIV turn performance against the MKVIII

the mkXIV (Griffon 61) "the engine is not representative of production as the FS gear is higher and the MS gear is lower" weighed 8,376lbs. The mkVIII (merlin63) weighed 7,760lbs

"The elevator control of the XIV was found to be much heavier that that of the VIII, unpleasantly so, and the other controls felt to be slightly heavier then on previous Spitfire Mks. In spite of heavy controls the mkXIV is more manoeuvrable than then the VIII in turns at all heights. Spins were carried out in the XIV at 25,000ft. The aircraft did not spin voluntaruly but had to be put into and held in the spin. On releasing the controls the aircraft automatically came out of the spin. instead of spinning in the normal nose down attitude, the nose of the aircraft oscillated from an almost vertical position downwards to a position with the nose well above the horizon, so that the aircraft was tail down. It spent most of its time in this flat position from which, after four turns, recovery was fast by the normal method or slower if the controls were released. It never appers to become uncontrolable. Pilot's view is superior on the XIV due to the lower engine cowling. Both aircraft carry the same ammount of fuel (96 gallons in the main tank and 27 gallons in the two wing tanks). Refueling checks made to compare consumption showed that when the two aircraft stayed together throughout the trials, the Griffon engine was using approximately 10-15 gallons more fuel per hour then the Merlin.

Conculsions. Of the two aircraft the Mk VIII is perferable at all heights up to about 25,000 ft except for its turning capabilities. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performace and fuel consumption are better. the Mk XIV is superior above 25,000ft and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probabaly be reduced as pilots gain familiarity."

Sourse "Sptifire The History" Pages 410-411

Not only does this show that th emkXIV had better turning ability then the mkVIII(very similar to the mkIX) but it was hard to spin the XIV, and was incredibly easy to get out of.

end of debate.

[This message was edited by biggs222 on Fri July 23 2004 at 01:09 PM.]

hop2002
07-23-2004, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I redid my test:
Sea Level: 512kph TAS (318 mph)
7650 meters (25,000 feet): 632kph TAS (392 mph)

Slightly better results than before. This time I properly flattened out and gave the aircraft time to get upto speed.

Tells me that the IX's maximum speed at best altitude (according to Squadron signal and a few others) is a few mph slow (listed as 404mph). At sea level its a few mph fast. Not bad overall...not a 20mph advantage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed at sea level for an LF IX should be around 335 mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also consider that the IX that was in use at the end of the war was a little more tweaked from what I've read than the ones earlier in the war. So more pounds of boost pressure, etc. Not sure how much difference that would make but a minor one perhaps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first Spit IX was the F IX, 312 mph at sea level. In 1943 the LF IX did 335 mph at sea level, in mid 1944 running on 150 octane they did around 360 at sea level. Climb rate increased by nearly 1,000 ft/min with 150 octane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dunno, you refer to your comparison with the prototype of the L.F. Mk IX series? Come on, get some real data of serial machines, not protties.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, once again, look at the various tests of the HF Spit IXs. They all did better at climbing than JL 165, even at low level, despite having less horsepower below critical alt.

You've seen Jl 165 compared to other Spit IXs. It's much, much slower. You aren't gaining credibility by ignoring that.

Nexus2005
07-23-2004, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> WTF ?!?!?!

the Hurricane served the ENTIRE duration of WW2

it got more kills during the BoB than ANY othe fighter

tell me how long the Spitfire Mk14 served again ?

is the Hurricane less important because its not as deadly in a DF server ? huh ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not saying the XIV was more important in the war than the Hurricane at all. But I think adding the XIV that is completly missing is much more important than TWEAKING the Hurricanes which we can already fly. Think of it like this:

You get a German coming new to this game and maybe flight sims in general, what is he gonna ask to fly first? Probably one of the best German aircraft from the late war (Bf or FW) and he can do that. Get an American coming to this sim what is he most likely to want to fly first? Probably the best Mustang from the late war and he can do that. Get a British person coming to this sim what is he most likely going to want to fly first? The best varient of the best and most famous British fighter plane: the Spitfire XIV. He can't do it.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

OldMan____
07-24-2004, 12:51 PM
That is the probkem.. eveyone only looks for 44 stuf...

I would love to have a Full real 42 or 43 server only to change a little bit.

I NEVER fly the K4.. cause? I dont like to fly what is best available!!

I ask.. how many times did any one here faced a P51 C in game?

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

MEGILE
07-24-2004, 01:16 PM
Interesting with the Mustangs is, the MKIII performs better than the MKIV at high alt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

p1ngu666
07-24-2004, 08:38 PM
yep
i want a mk1 tho, and a36 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
alison engine, but still mighty quick down low, and some had 4x20mm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Nub_322Sqn
07-25-2004, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Interesting with the Mustangs is, the MKIII performs better than the MKIV at high alt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, look at that Mustang III kicking the Spitfire XIV's behind at high alt. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Nub_322Sqn
07-25-2004, 04:14 AM
And here with the 100 grad fuel for both planes.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedchart.jpg

I must say, very interesting those Mustang III's.

They truly out perform those Spitfire XIV's with ease. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

MEGILE
07-25-2004, 07:25 AM
Ok Nub_322Sqn you misunderstood my sentence

Read the post before mine

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I ask.. how many times did any one here faced a P51 C in game?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and then read my post

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Interesting with the Mustangs is, the MKIII performs better than the MKIV at high alt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont even mention the Spitfire.. Im talking about the Mustang MKIII and Mustang MKIV.
The guy was saying how more people fly the Mustang MKIV and very few fly the MKIII, and I was saying that is ironic as the earlier version actualy outperforms the latter version at high alitutde.
Maybe using the British designations made it obscure, I apologize, the MKIII is the B/C and the MKIV s the D.. its probably because I always use Roundels on my Stang http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Interesting point about the comparative speeds of the SpitXIV and MustangIII you bring up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

p1ngu666
07-25-2004, 09:31 AM
RAF stangs ran a higher manifold pressure didnt they? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Montgomery Python
07-25-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:

WTF ?!?!?!

the Hurricane served the _ENTIRE_ duration of WW2

it got more kills during the BoB than _ANY_ othe fighter

tell me how long the Spitfire Mk14 served again ?

is the Hurricane less important because its not as deadly in a DF server ? huh ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was also outclassed as a fighter by the end of 1940, and as a CAS aircraft by the Typhoon. The 109 served the entire war too, but do you really want to be flying an Emil in a 1944 mission, on or offline?

Having said that, adding an extra 100bhp isn't the hardest thing in the world to do.

p1ngu666
07-25-2004, 02:33 PM
hurri did bombing and stuff, i think it was like a stuka g, before the stuka G http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

VW-IceFire
07-25-2004, 03:10 PM
I was surprised to learn that the Hurricane was still doing bombing attacks on the Continent during 1943. Although they were largely regarded as vulnerable to the flak, they were used against V-1 sites ("no-ball" sites).

The XIV still figures as an important late war fighter. During the push for the liberation of France, Belgium, Holland, and the invasion of Germany...the XIV was an important force. The Allies were more on the ropes than I think most people think. The fighting was tough and without some of the fighters like the XIV and Tempest to help push back the Luftwaffe the fight would have been longer or harder or both.

I don't discount either plane's contribution...even the specific versions.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

lrrp22
07-25-2004, 05:56 PM
8,000 ft is far from high altitude. Also, from the figures on that chart, only the mustang's represent actual performance.

The Tempest's speed is the spped achieved at +11 lbs boost PLUS the estimated increase in performance expected from repairing the paintwork.

Except for a very small sample around 4,000 ft, the Spit XIV's numbers are completely estimated. The tested examples were having problems running at +25 lb boost and were not able to complete testing at that boost level. The Spitfire XIV was limited to +21 lb boost in squadron service.

From this document, Only the Mustang III's graph represents actual test results. The 405 mph result at sea level was achieved without wingracks and a small bracket at the past of the aerial whip. The RAE, who conducted the tests) estimated that with wingracks and the bracket replaced, the mustang III's speed at sea level would be 395 mph.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Interesting with the Mustangs is, the MKIII performs better than the MKIV at high alt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, look at that Mustang III kicking the Spitfire XIV's behind at high alt. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
07-25-2004, 06:00 PM
The Mustang III cited here was only running at +15 lbs boost (61" Hg) which is +10 lbs below post-July '44 wartime combat power (+25 lbs/81" Hg) so is in no way representative of wartime performance.

For that matter, the Spit XIV is running at +18 lbs boost instead of its wartime-typical +21 lb boost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
And here with the 100 grad fuel for both planes.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedchart.jpg

I must say, very interesting those Mustang III's.

They truly out perform those Spitfire XIV's with ease. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rautaa...
07-26-2004, 07:11 AM
hop2002, have you noticed that there is now difference between H.F and L.F...they are same plane with sama specs in this game, test them if you dont believe me, I tested them....

Nexus2005
07-26-2004, 11:12 AM
They feel rather different to me, the LF has clipped wings! The only differences between the LF, ordinary and HF are clipped wings and what altitude the supercharger goes up a notch I think (although I think the HF might have a slightly more powerful engine, not sure), and I believe that is how it was.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

MEGILE
07-26-2004, 11:42 AM
Yeah I can't remember the exact alititudes and variants, but I'm sure the suprcharger kicks up a notch at different alts..

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

hop2002
07-26-2004, 12:34 PM
Yes, the HF should be about 5 mph slower, and have a slightly worse climb rate, at low altitudes.

But many people expect the Spit LF IX to be like the LF V.

The LF V was tuned for very low altitudes, it's maximum speed was at around 6000 ft. The LF IX had it's maximum speed at around 20,000ft.

VW-IceFire
07-26-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
They feel rather different to me, the LF has clipped wings! The only differences between the LF, ordinary and HF are clipped wings and what altitude the supercharger goes up a notch I think (although I think the HF might have a slightly more powerful engine, not sure), and I believe that is how it was.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...the LF designation doesn't mean that the wings are clipped. There was an IX F (1942), an IX LF (1943), and a IX HF (1943). Different engines...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Nexus2005
07-26-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Actually...the LF designation doesn't mean that the wings are clipped. There was an IX F (1942), an IX LF (1943), and a IX HF (1943). Different engines...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I know that, but there are no non clipped LF IXs in the game and that is what he was talking about http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

VW-IceFire
07-26-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Actually...the LF designation doesn't mean that the wings are clipped. There was an IX F (1942), an IX LF (1943), and a IX HF (1943). Different engines...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I know that, but there are no non clipped LF IXs in the game and that is what he was talking about http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as I know, despite the desgination in-game, all of the IX models are LF IX's. Except the HF one. The shape of the tail is one indication.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Nexus2005
07-26-2004, 05:55 PM
Well, I didn't know that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You learn something new every day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

VW-IceFire
07-26-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
Well, I didn't know that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You learn something new every day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Especially when you look at Spitfires...bloody complicated and surprising all the time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

VW-IceFire
07-27-2004, 07:13 AM
Well no response or word from the modeler Fievel for the XIV. Not sure if its officially dead or not...can't seem to get information either way.

If anyone finds something out post it...may be prudent to see if anyone else is interested in the creation of this mark of Spitfire.

It has a dual use as well. Its both a European theater and Pacific theater Spitfire (XIV's served in the last months of WWII against Japan under the RAF's SEAC command) so both Pacific Fighters and FB/AEP would benefit.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

dadada1
07-27-2004, 11:24 AM
Thats really sad news, he could hand over the work he's done for someone else to finish. A partly done Spit is better than starting from scratch.

VW-IceFire
07-27-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
Thats really sad news, he could hand over the work he's done for someone else to finish. A partly done Spit is better than starting from scratch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed...but no response is definately not encouraging for even that.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

p1ngu666
07-27-2004, 02:24 PM
indeed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

shame u cant get ppl to upload there models to a server each week, so if they go missing its bad, not awful

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Montgomery Python
07-27-2004, 05:44 PM
It's not like there's any great rush to get it in game... it'd not get looked at until after PF is out anyway.

VW-IceFire
07-27-2004, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Montgomery Python:
It's not like there's any great rush to get it in game... it'd not get looked at until after PF is out anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Takes a while to produce these things. So even if the end of August unofficial due date is now invalid...it still means that XIV should be finished sooner than later if we want it in-game. That goes for the Tempest, the Tempest cockpit, and the Typhoon cockpit too, not to mention the Mosquito VI cockpit, and the Spitfire 22.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Montgomery Python
07-27-2004, 06:44 PM
Sure.. and it's always the last 5% that takes more time than the rest put together. However I don't think there's any need to panic just yet.

Didn't the Tempest get submitted already?