PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, see how many want the Spit mkXIV



Pages : [1] 2

biggs222
10-25-2005, 10:34 AM

pdog1
10-25-2005, 12:20 PM
uh the spit mk XIV sucks and nobody wants it. We wall want the Spit mk I.

Viper2005_
10-25-2005, 12:39 PM
The Spitfire XIV rules and I for one want to see it.

As such you are wrong pdog1. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

It surely wouldn't be that hard to turn the existing VIII into an early XIV...

They used to call the XIV the Mk VIIIG after all...

Willey
10-25-2005, 12:51 PM
I would like it more than another 25 lb plane (IX) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

BTW when does the 25lb P-47 get 25lb? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-25-2005, 03:17 PM
Honestly.

How many different versions of the Spitfire are in this game, anyway?

Meanwhile, there is no flyable Italian fighter except biplanes and the severely underpowered C.50, only one Japanese fighter (the Ki-84) capable of holding its own against post-1942 Americans, no flyable Kate or Avenger, and so on.

On top of all this, the whole next GAME will concentrate on the Spitfire's "Finest Hour," the Battle of Britain.

Give us a break, please. I like the Spitfire too, but don't worship the thing.

Vrabac
10-25-2005, 03:52 PM
LOL

I wanted to vote, but when I saw how answers were formulated... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I guess you make polls for political parties or what?

P.S.

Notice the subtle trick of mentioning Oleg in the "yes" answer. Brilliant. I'm truly amazed.

bazzaah2
10-25-2005, 04:08 PM
I'm kind of thinking we need less planes.

p1ngu666
10-25-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:
I'm kind of thinking we need less planes.

yes, shall we do that by removing your favourite aircraft type? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-25-2005, 04:23 PM
I want it for use as stand in for MiG I-224 and I-225, like Yak-1 was used as Spit-1 before the AEP.

faustnik
10-25-2005, 04:49 PM
I'll add a yes on there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Pack it into the addon with the Tempest.

Viper2005_
10-25-2005, 05:29 PM
Honestly.

How many different versions of the Spitfire are in this game, anyway?

Meanwhile, there is no flyable Italian fighter except biplanes and the severely underpowered C.50, only one Japanese fighter (the Ki-84) capable of holding its own against post-1942 Americans, no flyable Kate or Avenger, and so on.

On top of all this, the whole next GAME will concentrate on the Spitfire's "Finest Hour," the Battle of Britain.

Give us a break, please. I like the Spitfire too, but don't worship the thing.

Well let's break your issues up into reasonable chunks shall we. In no particular order:

a) We've got a lot of Spitfires:

Ok. Well firstly production came out at over 20,000. The only fighter aircraft which exceeded that number AFAIK is the Bf-109 (~35,000 if memory serves). How many Bf-109s do we have?

Secondly, we've got a lot of "varients" but we don't have a lot of marks.

Clip the wings and double the number of Spits available. The tips were separate removeable units which could quickly and easily be exchanged, much like the gunpods on most German fighters, or indeed the droptanks and bombs on everything else. Think how many Bf-109s and Fw-190s we'd have if each armament option was a "new aircraft".

AFAIK we've only got 2 engines in our VIIIs and IXs - the HFs have 70s and the rest have 66s. We certainly don't have any Merlin 61s with which to combat the Fw-190 menace in its early stages.

We're obviously not going to get any early war RAF aircraft because of BoB. The Hurricane I is an export model AFAIK and therefore is no more authentic in RAF colours than the J8A.

Of the Spitfires we have, remember that the 4 cannon mk. V was only able to operate in hot climates (otherwise the outer cannon froze up). Anyway it has a rather awful tropical filter and consequently limited performance.

We've got some clipped, cropped and clapped LF Vs, (again note that we have a clipped and unclipped version of the same aeroplane).

Oh and we've got some Seafires. Not exactly the best Seafires I might add...

The VIII was mostly used in the east. The 4 cannon V is a desert bird.

So on the European front we've basically got a V, and LFV, an LF IX and an HF IX, and a Seafire (which is basically a V with lower performance, a hook and some 60 lb rockets).

Oh and for kicks we get the E wing for our otherwise identical IXs. Just what we've always wanted.

We've got a lot of Spitfires, but half of them should be ordanance options rather than separate aircraft, and a lot of the rest are theatre specific.

It is worth pointing out that the Spitfire fought on almost all the fronts of the war. You won't find a Bf-109 in the pacific. Nor will you find an Fw-190 or Ta-152.

We need a lot of Spitfires to accurately model the airwar. Simple as that.

We're never going to get a mk I or a Mk II to cover the early war. Much as I would personally like to see an early IX with the Mk V tail and a Merlin 61 (@ +12 psi early and +15 psi late) I just can't see it happening because it wouldn't perform as well as the existing IXs...

I'd also like to see an extended wing VIII - that's how the early ones were produced (despite the fact that Quill did not approve!).

However, this is the real world. People want performance. And for performance, you want an XIV.

b) Various other airforces lack aircraft.

Ok so you cite Italy. How many fighters did they put in the air exactly? Italy was not a major airpower by any stretch of the imagination in WWII. They actually sent Biplanes to the Battle of Britain!

AFAIK, no Italian aircraft served outside of Europe (unless you count the "Tony" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif )

I agree that the lack of hardware for the pacific theatre is lamentable. But I don't think we'll ever get a flyable Avenger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif .

The Japanese could do with some more fighters (I would especially like to see a late Ki43), but again they are open to the argument that their aircraft did not see service outside of the Pacific theatre.

Given the limitations of time and resources, it seems to me that the most sensible course would be to convert the existing VIII into a VIIIG (ie an early XIV). The work required would be quite limited (forward fuselage, prop and cockpit boost gauge) and the return would be massive.

I suspect that red whine production would decrease dramatically in the face of a real late war Spitfire!

The blues get their Fw-190A9, Fw-190D9 and Bf-109K4.

Is it really too much to ask that we get a Spitfire XIV?

Oh and BTW, I fly <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Blue</span>

In all fairness I am biased because:

i) I'm British
ii) (and it's a very big gap to second place!) I fly warclouds
iii) I think that the early Spitfire mk. XIV is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

horseback
10-25-2005, 05:48 PM
1. More Spitfire Mk XIVs actually operated in combat to their factory specs than late war Me-109G-10/K-4s (and we still have actual flying examples of these beautiful aircraft to prove those specs)

2. More Spitfire Mk XIVs saw combat and scored more kills than Ta-152s

3. More Spitfire Mk XIVs saw combat than the He-162, Me-163, Me-109Z or the BI-1.

4. The Western Allied air forces have NO flyable late-war fighters represented except the experimental YP-80. Everything else is no later than mid-44 production. The LW gets the 109K-4, 190A-9, 190D-9, Ta-152H, Me-262, He-162, and the imaginary Me-109Z.

How is this balanced?

Give us the Spit XIV.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
10-25-2005, 05:58 PM
...and Spit IX +25 and the Mustang IV!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



(Don't forget that Fw190D-13 and Fw190F9 we talked about Oleg.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

ImpStarDuece
10-25-2005, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Honestly.

How many different versions of the Spitfire are in this game, anyway?



How many are we allowed?

We have V, XI and XIII variants at the moment. Major production variants (100 or more) were the Mks I,II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIV, XVI and XXI. So we have 3 of 11 variants that saw wartime service, discounting photo recon versions.

I personally could go for;

Spitfire Mk IA, wooden 2 bladed fixed prop, Merlin II, 6.75 lbs/inch boost
Spitfire Mk IA, wooden 2 blade fixed pitch prop, Merlin III, 12.5 lbs/inch boost.
Spitfire Mk IA, metal 3 blade constant speed prop, Merlin II, 12.5 lbs/ inch boost
Spitfire Mk IIA, Merlin XII, 9 lbs boost
Spitfire Mk IIA, Merlin XII, 12.5 lbs/ inch boost
Spitfire Mk IIB, as above
Spitfire PR IV, Merlin 45/50/56 or 46, 16 lbs/ inch boost
Spitfire PR XIII, Merlin 32, 3 blade deHavilland CSP, 18 lbs boost
Spitfire PR XIII, Merlin 32, 4 blade Rotol CSP, 18lbs boost
Spitfire VI, 4 blade CSP, Merlin 47, 16lbs boost
Spitfire VI, 4 blade CSP, Merlin 47, 15lbs boost, cabin pressuriser
Spitfire F. VII, 4 blade CSP, Merlin 61 with 15 lbs boost
Spitfire F. VII, 4 blade CSP, Merlin 64 with 18 lbs boost
Spitfire HF. VII, 4 blade CSP, Merlin 71 with 18 lbs boost
Spitfire XII, Griffon III, 12 lbs boost
Spitfire XII, Griffon IV, changed reduction gearing rations, 4 blade wooden CSP
Spitfire F. XVIe, Packard Merlin 266, +18lbs boost, bubble canopy
Spitfire XVIe, Packard Merlin 266, +25 lbs boost
Spitfire F. XIV, Griffon 65, +18 lbs boost
Spitfire F. XIV, Griffon 65, +21 lbs boost, bubble canopy
Spitfire FR. XIV, Griffon 65, +21lbs boost, bubble canopy, additional fuel tanks, cameras in rear fuselage
Spitfire XXI, Griffon 61/65, +18lbs boost, 4 Hispanos,


We can have at least 21 more variants of the Spitfire. And that is without going into armament and wing type subtypes. More. MORE, I say. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

P.S. The Spitfire Vs )particularly the LF variants) sould be capable of taking 30, 45 and 90 imp gal droptanks, as well as 2x 250 lbs bombs on the wings or one 500lbs bomb on a centerline mount. These loadouts are missing in game.
Spitfire VIIIs should have similar tankage capabilities and the ability to haul 2x 250lbs bombs and 1x 500lbs bomb (1000lbs total)

Grey_Mouser67
10-25-2005, 06:20 PM
As far as I'm concerned, we can't have too many versions of any aircraft...spit, fw whatever! My only exception to that is fantasy planes that consume programming resources and talent without producing a product that enhances realistic gameplay.

The Spit Mk XIV is a must and I think would be a worthwhile endeavor to finish...the external model is done...don't know about the cockpit...but short of the Tempest and Mosquito, it has to be the most sought after aircraft...Oleg, know your market!

DangerForward
10-25-2005, 06:27 PM
The Spit 14 would be cool. If I had to pick one more British plane to do it would be the Typhoon. The more I read about the Western Front, the more important it seems.

goshikisen
10-25-2005, 06:36 PM
One of the best reasons for incorporating the 14 is the fact that the model is already finished... a huge chunk of the work has been done. I've been told that the cockpit is pretty similar to the Spit cockpit we already have so making it flyable would also be possible.

Daiichidoku
10-25-2005, 07:31 PM
yes, there is a distinct lack of spitfires in FB

its almost as bad a situation as the glut of yaks


next thing you'll all want F.24s or spitefuls, too...



a flyable frenchie would be far more useful, and exciting, IMO...or even better, claudes, nates, toryus, shokis...thank gawd we may see a flyable raiden

seriously, are IXs and VIIIs so completely lacking as to require a necessity for "balancing" XIVs?



yes, LW gets a lot of late war stuff...but allies get a fair share of late war/exceptional/marginal stuff too, and beyond "merely" the p 80....I-185, MiG 3U, Yak3P, La7 (3xB20), stang III, 38 "late", 47 "near M",


not a rant, guys...well, ok, kind of a rant

anyhow, as long as there is a "better" type not had, there will always be an "unbalance"...so just be a spit fanboi and get over it

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Daiichidoku
10-25-2005, 07:34 PM
i can agree though, that what does take little or neglible effort to modify to another variant should be delved into by a small or PT staff at 1C

as long as FM/DMs are fairly accurate, minor cockpit differences mean nothing to me...so many types in FB that could be changed so easily into so many variants, mostly power or armament differences

Daiichidoku
10-25-2005, 07:41 PM
of the clipped spits...

were all clippys produced with cropped impellors?

do any the the FB clippys have cropped impellors?

just wondering, AFAIK, the V clippys were cropped, too, making operation over (?) 16,000 ft pretty lame for power, not to mention the alt disadvantages of the wing itself


in FB i often see CWs operating close to and over 20,000 with little discernable difficulties, in climb, accel, top end or turns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

VW-IceFire
10-25-2005, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Honestly.

How many different versions of the Spitfire are in this game, anyway?

Meanwhile, there is no flyable Italian fighter except biplanes and the severely underpowered C.50, only one Japanese fighter (the Ki-84) capable of holding its own against post-1942 Americans, no flyable Kate or Avenger, and so on.

On top of all this, the whole next GAME will concentrate on the Spitfire's "Finest Hour," the Battle of Britain.

Give us a break, please. I like the Spitfire too, but don't worship the thing.
Five actually http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This would bring it to 6.

Wouldn't be a nice little addon...but I want my cake and eat it too. Those Italian planes...sounds great...Tempest (oh yeah!) Mosqutio.

horseback
10-25-2005, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
yes, there is a distinct lack of spitfires in FB

its almost as bad a situation as the glut of yaks

next thing you'll all want F.24s or spitefuls, too... Three basic models are in the game, dressed up in different wingtips and armament options: Mk Vb/c, Mk VIII/IX, Seafires (all variants of the Mk Vc)


a flyable frenchie would be far more useful, and exciting, IMO...or even better, claudes, nates, toryus, shokis...thank gawd we may see a flyable raiden ...and you'd have to force people to fly a French built fighter that flew in meaningful numbers-but I'm all for a Hawk 75/P-36s, if that's what you mean. The majority of the work for the Mk XIV has long been done, and if the Nates, Claudes, et al are also available, I'm all for them too, but a large part of the community think the Spit XIV is needed more.


seriously, are IXs and VIIIs so completely lacking as to require a necessity for "balancing" XIVs?

yes, LW gets a lot of late war stuff...but allies get a fair share of late war/exceptional/marginal stuff too, and beyond "merely" the p 80....I-185, MiG 3U, Yak3P, La7 (3xB20), stang III, 38 "late", 47 "near M",
Again, all those Western a/c listed are early '44 types, operating in accordance with known parameters. Allied units were much more 'adventurous' with regards to unit upgrades than their Axis counterparts (you don't want me to cite my documentation--the Allies won the war as much through better maintenance as by direct attrition). We still have yet to see any true late war Western fighters--no Tempests, no Spit XIVs, no P-47Ms, no F4U-4s. Why is that again?


not a rant, guys...well, ok, kind of a rant

anyhow, as long as there is a "better" type not had, there will always be an "unbalance"...so just be a spit fanboi and get over it :tongue Not a Spit fanboi; call me an admirer of great fighters and a dispiser of the boobs who want to believe that it was simply a matter of numbers that decided the air war--if that were the case, the Normandy invasion would have waited until 1948, and been mounted against the Soviets.

cheers

horseback

Viper2005_
10-25-2005, 09:53 PM
do any the the FB clippys have cropped impellors?

Only the LF V has a cropped impellor. (Merlin 45M)

The 45M was a modified 45. It's easier to crop the supercharger than manufacture new gears...

I'm not sure if the Seafire LIII uses a cropped impellor or modified gear ratios...

The LF IX uses different supercharger gear ratios (Merlin 66 - newbuilt specially for the job).

Badsight.
10-25-2005, 09:56 PM
id rather see the Tempest become useable before any more external or internal Spitfires are added

at least you can get some use out of the Tempest besides AirQuaking

p1ngu666
10-26-2005, 12:18 AM
ground attack badsight? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

could use XIV to sim photo recon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

pourshot
10-26-2005, 12:31 AM
Honestly.

How many different versions of the Spitfire are in this game, anyway?

Q.And how many 109's and FW's do we have?

A.Who cares more is better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Personaly if I had to choose I would take the Tempest over the mkXIV but I would still like the 14 as it's just sooooo sexy.

WOLFMondo
10-26-2005, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by horseback:


4. The Western Allied air forces have NO flyable late-war fighters represented except the experimental YP-80. Everything else is no later than mid-44 production. The LW gets the 109K-4, 190A-9, 190D-9, Ta-152H, Me-262, He-162, and the imaginary Me-109Z.

Much as I want the XIV that simply isn't true. P47D27, P47D, P51C, P51D, Mustang MkIII, Spitfire IX, Spitfire VIII are all examples of fighters flown in 1945.

stathem
10-26-2005, 02:18 AM
Mondo, Hurricanes were flown in 1945 but you wouldn't want to fight a K-4 in one..

If it's possible, add it, if it ain't, then the 25lb IX would pass (although I prefer the look of the XIV). And if it possible(CW), could we have it rolling at rate closer to reality?

Last time I was at Duxford, I was leafing through a book dedicated to Dora9s. I'm not interested enough in them to shell out 20 for it, but I came across the line (to paraphrase)

"the Spitfire XIV was the plane all other late war fighters were compared to..."

It also had some climb rate data (**** I wish I'd bought it now) which gave the XIV as being a full minute faster to...[some altitude I can't remember...could have been 10 or 20,000']..than both the D9 and the P-51. If we ever do get it then Luftwaffe types would be advised to spend a lot of time looking at their high 6....

But if you really want to know about it's chances of making it, look in the in-game object viewer at Spitfires

"the later Griffon engined variants were used mostly for ground attack"

that doesn't sound encouraging to me.

MEGILE
10-26-2005, 08:32 AM
There is 0 chance of the Spitfire XIV being added.

csThor
10-26-2005, 08:42 AM
Even though I'm a LW freak I agree about the 25lbs Spit IX and the XIV. But if I had to pick one RAF plane I'd choose the Typhoon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-26-2005, 08:54 AM
Not a bad discussion here, actually. Both sides are scoring.


Ok. Well firstly production came out at over 20,000. The only fighter aircraft which exceeded that number AFAIK is the Bf-109 (~35,000 if memory serves). How many Bf-109s do we have?

Allied aircraft industries were pumping out fighters from unbombed factories late in the war. If we€re going to use €œnumbers produced€ as a determining factor, then 90 percent of the plane types in this game will be allied.


Secondly, we've got a lot of €œvarients€ but we don't have a lot of marks. ... We've got a lot of Spitfires, but half of them should be ordanance options rather than separate aircraft, and a lot of the rest are theatre specific.

Now that€s a valid point. I€ll concede on that one.


It is worth pointing out that the Spitfire fought on almost all the fronts of the war. You won't find a Bf-109 in the pacific. Nor will you find an Fw-190 or Ta-152.

That point€s already been covered in your €œvarients€ argument. Besides, each €œfront€ needs its own aircraft. For instance, if we decide on the basis of numbers, then €œPacific Fighters€ never would have been made. The numbers are on the side of Europe.


However, this is the real world. People want performance. And for performance, you want an XIV.

Now we€re down to brass tacks. I€m not an online player. Frankly, its very frustrating to listen to all this clamor for the ultimate version of everybody€s favorite fighter while historically significant aircraft are ignored.

What was the most numerous Japanese fighter aircraft in December, 1941? The Ki-27. We don€t even have an AI version of that. What was the only Italian fighter able to hold its own against modern Allied fighters during most of the war? The MC.202. We don€t have a flyable version of that. We have no Mosquito. We have no Tempest. We have great late-war Bf 109s and FW 190s and no flyable Ju-88. We have no flyable George. We have no flyable Kates or Avengers. We don€t even have an AI Wellington.

All the Spitfire Mark XIV ever did was help safeguard an Allied air superiority that was won long before by other types, many of which are not represented in the game. The XIV was a sweet plane on a historical back bench.


Ok so you cite Italy. How many fighters did they put in the air exactly? Italy was not a major airpower by any stretch of the imagination in WWII. They actually sent Biplanes to the Battle of Britain!

Again, if we€re going to disqualify airplane types on the basis of sheer numbers, we€re going to have a bunch of Spitfires, Yaks, Hellcats and Mustangs buzzing around with nothing to fight except obsolescent versions of Bf 109s and Zeros.


Given the limitations of time and resources, it seems to me that the most sensible course would be to convert the existing VIII into a VIIIG (ie an early XIV).

Given the limited time and resources, it seems to me that we should stop making still more varients of the same airplane.


I think that the early Spitfire mk. XIV is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made

That I cannot argue with.

JG53Frankyboy
10-26-2005, 09:09 AM
a list, what would be a nice and also usefull (!) addition to the game in view of planes, is so huge !
and that realy doesnt depent what side the planes belong - i think the most members here in the community are just "plane"-maniacs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

but nothing will help - oleg made in august a list of "propably" comming planes in the future as free adon - even he said he would be not sure if all will make it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

nevertheless , back to topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
i realy realy would welcome the beautifull Nymes's Mk.XIV in the game, it would be very usefull on Ian's new NW-Germany map. but after oelgs comment about it, i doubt it will have a chance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

so my wishlist for the Spitfires in game is the following:
- ad bombs and droptanks at least to both LF.Vb
- change both Mk.IXe (except the HF one)to 25+ boost status for 1944/45 use

anarchy52
10-26-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:


AFAIK we've only got 2 engines in our VIIIs and IXs - the HFs have 70s and the rest have 66s. We certainly don't have any Merlin 61s with which to combat the Fw-190 menace in its early stages.


FW-190 menace? not after 4.02, be sure.

Viper2005_
10-26-2005, 11:21 AM
All the Spitfire Mark XIV ever did was help safeguard an Allied air superiority that was won long before by other types, many of which are not represented in the game. The XIV was a sweet plane on a historical back bench.

Air superiority must be maintained after it is won.

The Spitfire IX at +18 psi is not superior to the Fw-190A9, Fw-190D9 or the later Bf-109s with water-methanol injection. Don't even talk about the Ta-152...

For "in game" proof, look at warclouds.

http://www.war-clouds.com/wf-stats/index.php?navigation=plane/all/index.html

In a late war environment, late war equipment is required (I really don't understand why the 4 cannon Mk V does so well - the guys who fly it must be awesomely good! Anyway it's the exception which proves the rule).

We need +25 psi LF Spitfires urgently, We also need the XIV to take on the Ta-152 at high altitude (on the deck the +25 psi IX is almost as good as the +18 XIV).

The Tempest V will certainly be useful, but it just isn't as good a fighter as the Spitfire XIV.

Historically, evaluation of captured German aircraft paints a similar picture, which is why the RAF switched over to 150 grade fuel, and introduced new fighter such as the Tempest and Spitfire XIV.

Of course earlier in the war we also had the Spitfire XII for low altitude work, but that's another story...

Monty_Thrud
10-26-2005, 12:15 PM
Heck, i can't understand why anyone wouldn't want the Spitfire MkXIV in, unless it was because of online reasons...are you a fan of WWII warbirds or just a gamer?

Put me down for the XIV, this girls practically finished anyway...FS2004 (http://www.realairsimulations.com/) has it...

I welcome ALL warbirds, each and everyone added to this Sim, allows the community to enjoy it that bit more, not to mention extra missions online and offline/historical/what ifs/just for fun...skins, all new aircraft bring in more simmers...

VOTE yes please Oleg..i want the MkXIV Spitfire...and you to will have sexy leather clad ladies wanting you to show them your joystick techniques http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Daiichidoku
10-26-2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
...and you'd have to force people to fly a French built fighter that flew in meaningful numbers-but I'm all for a Hawk 75/P-36s, if that's what you mean..... but a large part of the community think the Spit XIV is needed more.

i think then, you'd be surprised at just how ppl would have to get thier arms twisted to fly frenchies...not to mention the campaigns and maps for that oh-so-long, drawn out battle of francehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

well, i meant that a hawk doesnt really count as a "french" type, per se...kinda like calling havocs n P 400s french, too...but we both agree it still be nice to have hawks flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

a large part of this community think ANY type is abdly needed...but which types SHOULD or DESERVE a place in it, second to the XIV? a LOT




:horseback
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">: daii
"seriously, are IXs and VIIIs so completely lacking as to require a necessity for "balancing" XIVs?
yes, LW gets a lot of late war stuff...but allies get a fair share of late war/exceptional/marginal stuff too, and beyond "merely" the p 80....I-185, MiG 3U, Yak3P, La7 (3xB20), stang III, 38 "late", 47 "near M"

Again, all those Western a/c listed are early '44 types, operating in accordance with known parameters. We still have yet to see any true late war Western fighters--no Tempests, no Spit XIVs, no P-47Ms, no F4U-4s. Why is that again? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i bet to differ, sir...ok, nitpicking here...but...185 and mig3Us are 42 types..43 at best, assuming they made full production, which they didnt..both types together ammount to but 9 units...YP80s are by no means "early" 44 you know better than that....Yak3Ps were a major deploymnt in 46...first one had state trials in march 45...la73xB20s were late 44 at very best..should be listed as 45 types, really...cant argue bout the stangIII, 38late and 47s tho, correct...
the 47D, or 47"late" is as close to the M as we will get...i prefer to call it an M, actually...F4U4s SHOULD have been here, instead of the F4U 1C, which IRL pilots hated (must have to do with prdouct placement, ki84 1C, ki431C lol)...Tempest would be grand (but again, id prefer to more representitive Typhoon)...as for the XIV?
:doug thompson (thanks doug)
All the Spitfire Mark XIV ever did was help safeguard an Allied air superiority that was won long before by other types, many of which are not represented in the game. The XIV was a sweet plane on a historical back bench.

why is that? if I knew, then you would know, as well, and everyone else, and the problem probably wouldnt exist long after that, lol!

(btw, when you say "late war western fighter", do u mean those who made an appearance in late war? cause V spits were still all over the place, even on the continent, after D-Day!...one could call teh V "late war" under those cimcumstances...to say nothing of the IX!)



:horseback
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">:daii
rant, guys...well, ok, kind of a rant

anyhow, as long as there is a "better" type not had, there will always be an "unbalance"...so just be a spit fanboi and get over it :tongue Not a Spit fanboi; call me an admirer of great fighters and a dispiser of the boobs who want to believe that it was simply a matter of numbers that decided the air war--if that were the case, the Normandy invasion would have waited until 1948, and been mounted against the Soviets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i admire ALL military types, really, even if i slight certain ones occasiona..errr...often...and the men who flew and/or died in em
you dont say so directly, but you aren' saying that I"M one who go by "numbers", are you? cause if so, i dont see where i led you to believe that...if not,....nevermind...cnt argue about the boob part thoughhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
10-26-2005, 03:42 PM
There were 6 squadrons still active with the Spitfire V is Europe on D-Day. All of these were ADGB squadrons. All had switched to either the Spitfire IX or XIV by October. Some operated the Spitfire Vb in parallel with other types, usually the Spitfire IX.

No. 11 Group
No 64 Sqn
No 234 Sqn
No 611 Sqn
No 345 Sqn
No 350 Sqn

No 12 Group
No 504 Sqn

No 13 Group
No 118 Sqn

Other squadrons who operated the type in some capacity include No 23 Sqn and No 64 Sqn of the air spotting pool, who primarily performed CAS functions,

Doug_Thompson
10-26-2005, 04:34 PM
Air superiority must be maintained after it is won.

Yes €" and the swarms of P-47s, P-51s, and numerous other types of Spitfires, plus Typhoons, Tempests and others was more than enough to maintain it in World War II.

To use an example we all know, the Me-262 was a much better fighter than any of those aircraft. Allied air superiority was so incontestable at that point, however, that the slower prop planes could loiter around Me-262 airstrips and bushwhack the jets on takeoff and landing.

The only "air superiority" the Mark XIV could have ever decisively influenced is online.

I understand that online Spitfire enthusiasts want a version of their favorite that's comparable to late-war Bf 109s and FW-190 €" and P-51s and Corsairs, too. I'm sorry you didn't get it instead of all the Spitfire varients that were pointed out earlier.

Look, my personal favorite "pet project" is the Do 335, as you can tell from my signature art. Yet I would be willing to give that plane up to give you a Mark XIV. While I consider the XIV's historical importance relatively minor, it was certainly much more important than the X-Plane "Do-Do Bird." However, this is not a trade that can be made.

The real problem here is that somebody with the time, talent, hardware and dedication €" and luck €" was apparently able to produce a rendering of a Do 335 that didn't have some unforeseen, tragic glitch in it. I know from posts here that people worked very hard on the XIV, and it didn't work out. They weren't even told why. That was a very tough break, but there's nothing to be done about it this late in PF's product life.

At this point, it's time to stop asking for a new aircraft. Instead, you deserve a straight answer on why the M.XIV project stopped. I'll grant you, you all deserve that.

Gnasha
10-26-2005, 04:39 PM
Even though I'm a LW freak I agree about the 25lbs Spit IX and the XIV. But if I had to pick one RAF plane I'd choose the Typhoon Wink


100% tip top old boy! WE NEED A TIFFIE MORE THAN ANOTHER SPIT!

Cmon guys not having a Typhoon is a serious omission from the game especially now that we have the NW Europe map to go with the Normandy map. Make no mistake this was a serious mud mover 1940's style!

Viper2005_
10-26-2005, 05:08 PM
Never say die.

If we get a +25 psi MkIX out of this, we've made progress.

But there is no incontestable law of nature preventing a Mk XIV from appearing. It's unlikely, but it's not impossible. Stranger things have happened.

I bet the rejected models could be fixed if there was sufficient demand.

We've just got to show that there is sufficient demand.

Arm_slinger
10-26-2005, 05:46 PM
We need more than the 14, we need

RAF power rated Hurri's
Typhoon
Tempest
Mozzie
Blenheims
Beauforts

and more

Is it getting warm in here? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Viper2005_
10-26-2005, 09:23 PM
Don't forget the Wellington and the Lancaster and...

shinden1974
10-26-2005, 09:44 PM
Considering what Oleg has said about the series lately, it isn't time to give up yet. If the XIV exists, it can be fixed, if it can be fixed it may see the light of day.

Maybe it wasn't all that significant historically, but being an old EAW fan, I'm just used to the thing. I'm very happy to at least get a tempest to give the RAF a true monster. But I could stand a XIV also.

ImpStarDuece
10-26-2005, 10:09 PM
I wouldn't call 10 squadrons operating the XIV before the close of hostilities not historically significant. RAF OOBs from July 1943 have 11 squadrons operatin Spitfire IXs, but you wouldn't call them insignificant at that point in time.

It just wasn't used AS MUCH as the Spitfire XI, VIII or V. It was did see service in more squadrons than the Tempest, and people don't seem to question the historical significance of that particular airframe.

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 03:44 AM
well, with the speed the same as a k4 pretty much, only a few german planes would be able to run away
A9, D9

a8, alcholic 109s have similer speed

so a spitfire that has specs like a alcholic 109, while retaining the spitfires handling well, a better view over the nose too.

with clipped wings u could/should more or less keep up with 190 roll, and still outturn 109s.

clearly something so potent would threaten the blue "teamwork" success on warclouds...

jeanba2
10-27-2005, 05:18 AM
The XIV is on of my favourite aircraft.
If it is nearly ready, I would really like to fly it.

HeinzBar
10-28-2005, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
We need more than the 14, we need

RAF power rated Hurri's
Typhoon
Tempest
Mozzie
Blenheims
Beauforts

and more

Is it getting warm in here? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Slinger got it. What the RAF fans really need in this game are more RAF ground pounders. The current crop of spits are woefully poor at doing any strike missions. The typhoon would the best one to add first, then the tempest, the blenheims & beauforts, followed by the Mosquito. The RAF needs another Spitfire like a hole in the head...although, the 25lb spit would be the easiest to add, especially since 'late' is currently in vogue.

HB

ImpStarDuece
10-28-2005, 07:54 AM
What we need are some bomb load outs for the 1942 and 1943 Spitfire Vb and Vcs and for the Spitfire VIIIs as well.

2x 250 lbs bombs on the wings or 1x 500 lbs bomb on the centreline could be carried on a Spitfire Mk V. Total bombload was 500 lbs

2x 250 lbs (wings) and 1x 500lbs (centreline) could be carried on the Mk VIII. Toatl bombload was 1000lbs.

At the moment I am using a Seafire L. Mk III to represent an early 1944 low altitude Spiftire campaign. Most of the MkVs work after the end of 1942 was either as a close escort or as a fighter bomber. I really want a clipped wing Mk. V LF with a 500lb bombload. It would double the amount of missions you can build for the Spitfire.

Viper2005_
10-28-2005, 09:03 AM
The current crop of spits are woefully poor at doing any strike missions


The RAF needs another Spitfire like a hole in the head.

That's a bit like saying that the Bf-109G2 is an aweful ground attack aircraft, and therefore the blues don't need anymore Bf-109s after the G2.

The weakness of the current crop of Spitfires is speed at low level. But this is hardly surprising, given their vintage.

Spitfires were used as ground attack aircraft with considerable success IRL, mainly attacking soft targets with machine gun and cannon fire, but also bombing.

But, like the Bf-109 their main job is air superiority.

Against 1945 opposition like the Ta-152, even the mighty HF IX is outclassed. Not so the XIV.

Lower down, whilst the IX is pretty much the equal of the 190A4 and A5, the later 190s have the upper hand, especially the A9s and Doras.

And then there are those pesky Bf-109s with MW50 injection.

Current Spitfires are effective, but have considerable difficulty disengaging.

The RAF needs a later Spitfire (or two) to compete with the later German kit so that in addition to getting kills, Spitfire pilots can get home.

I'd like to see +25 psi versions of the IXs currently available.

A +25 psi VIII would be nice if we're not going to get a XIV ever at all.

But a XIV would be the ultimate (especially if supplied with both clipped and standard wings).

Sure the Tempest is faster. But the Spitfire can take on the Luftwaffe at all altitudes, from the deck to nose-bleed city.

It can carry bombs and hit ground targets; after hitting said ground targets it has an awesome self-defence capability.

The most important thing about the Spitfire is that we already have it; the VIII forms the basis of the XIV with minor modifications (new forward fuselage, new prop). As I understand it, such modifications were carried out with by a 3rd party and merely need cleaning up.

Adding +25 psi boost to the existing Spitfires should be no harder than making the Mustang III or P-47D was and would go a long way towards making the RAF competative again at the sort of "tactical" altitudes flown on most servers, including Warclouds when jabo'ing.

Tempest is coming.

Mosquito is coming.

Typhoon sadly isn't going to happen we're told, though I understand that it was nearly finished. As we're getting rockets for the Tempest, I won't complain - Tempest is superior to Typhoon in all respects.

All of the other ground attack aircraft would effectively need to be built from scratch and would require too much work. Much as I'd love to fly a Lancaster, it isn't going to happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Making a +25 psi IX and a XIV should be fairly easy on the other hand, and there's maybe just a small chance that they might happen if we keep asking very nicely.

lbhskier37
10-28-2005, 10:42 AM
As much as most of the WC whiners on this board would like to think, the majority of people that play this game don't fly warclouds, and could care less about how spit pilots can't get kills in that airquake server. Not everyone always wants a plane with more performance. Some poeple play offline and in online wars. The two most needed spits in offline or online wars, besides the mk1 and mkII that we wont get are early mkVs and early mkIXs. We have the FWs that flew against the early mkVs and a great map for it, and the early mkIXs were designed to counter those FWs. It would make for great fun in a late 1942 schenerio. Too all the poor babies that whine that the LW has so many latewar planes, well they've been modeled and in the game since the game came out and was a EF sim, they have been doing their best to add latewar allied planes since, mainly because of the vocal minority of airquakers out there. I didn't vote because there are no descent options, I could care less if they add the mk14, but the mkV and mkIX early would be less work and much more usefull to the quiet majority.

Monty_Thrud
10-28-2005, 11:29 AM
Well, i use all features of IL2PF..online-fun servers/historical servers..offline-FMB(historical/just for fun/what ifs)-UDQMG-missions(built by the community/already ingame)and creating my own movies...and i would like to see the Spitfire MkIX(+25)and XIV for those reasons...building missions for online and offline...i am a warbird enthusiast and the IX+25 and XIV opens up many more opportunities to recreate those late war missions.

...the offliners are the majority and the only people who dont want to see the XIV are onliners of a certain type...go figure

HeinzBar
10-28-2005, 11:38 AM
That's a bit like saying that the Bf-109G2 is an aweful ground attack aircraft, and therefore the blues don't need anymore Bf-109s after the G2.


...the offliners are the majority and the only people who dont want to see the XIV are onliners of a certain type...go figure.


That's exactly the point. The RAF has more than enough Spitfire variants, although the +25lb IX would be nice. The fact is both sides have in the game more than enough variants of their main fighters. We're not talking of adding fighters to make up a shortage. The USAAF, VVS, and Luftwaffe also has their fighter bombers while the RAF has zippo. The addition of the afordsaid RAF figher-bombers/bombers should be a higher priority to the RAF arsenal than adding another spitfire. As map making goes, the value of the XIV is small. The addition of the typhoon/tempest or bombers are more worthy, overall planes to be added to this game.

HB

Monty_Thrud
10-28-2005, 11:53 AM
As map making goes, the value of the XIV is small. The addition of the typhoon/tempest or bombers are more worthy, overall planes to be added to this game.


But the XIV is so close to being finished...all that work shouldnt go to waste and it allows the RAF aircraft to fly from the start to the end of the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
10-28-2005, 01:41 PM
a late spit would atleast allow the mossie tobe escorted by a spit.

map making value of doras must be lower tho. after all, XIV started 6months earlier roughly. and the dora doesnt carry bombs (it could...) but aprently no better than a a8-9 with bomb.

i request the doras be removed from warclouds maps, for reasons of equality http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

plus ofcourse the XIV would piss everso slightly on two major blue beliefs. a) 109 was best. b) lw only lost cos of vast numbers of **** aircraft overwelming them.

main reason they dont mind the tempest is they think it cant turn and burn

Doug_Thompson
10-28-2005, 01:43 PM
If making an acceptable model of a late-war Spitfire was an easy matter of a few modifications of existing work, it would have been done years ago.

faustnik
10-28-2005, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
If making an acceptable model of a late-war Spitfire was an easy matter of a few modifications of existing work, it would have been done years ago.

Why do you say that? It took a while for the Mustang III, P-38L Late and P-47D Late to show up. How tough could including a Spit IX +25 be?

Badsight.
10-28-2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
The fact is both sides have in the game more than enough variants of their main fighters. We're not talking of adding fighters to make up a shortage. The USAAF, VVS, and Luftwaffe also has their fighter bombers while the RAF has zippo. The addition of the afordsaid RAF figher-bombers/bombers should be a higher priority to the RAF arsenal than adding another spitfire exactly

the worth to FB = Tempest

the worth to point whoring = Mk14

Viper2005_
10-28-2005, 02:07 PM
I have already stated that I would like to see some early IXs. But I don't think that they're going to happen.

We don't have the right Fw-190 anyway. We need an A-3. We've got an A-4 with a derated engine for eastern front ops.

HB, we've got a lot of varient of Spitfire, but not a lot of Marks.

It's like having a 109F-4 and a G-6 with each of the armament variations down as a new aircraft.

At the very least we need a +25 psi IX in order to deal with operations after D-Day.

Certainly a Typhoon would be an excellent addition to the fleet.

The Tempest is about as important as the XIV numerically, but somewhat less impressive in overall performance. Giving it rockets to make up for the absence of the Typhoon is certainly useful.

The Spitfire XIV could actually be of great utility for map making purposes.

It is the perfect foil for the late war Luftwaffe kit like the Bf-109K, the Ta-152, the Fw-190D-9 and the jets.

And yes, mud moving is great.

But I still want a Spitfire XIV, because apart from anything else, it is a thing of true beauty, a functional work of art.

lbhskier37
10-28-2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I have already stated that I would like to see some early IXs. But I don't think that they're going to happen.

We don't have the right Fw-190 anyway. We need an A-3. We've got an A-4 with a derated engine for eastern front ops.


Our derated A-4 is basically the same aircraft as the A-3, the only difference was the A-4 had a different radio set. Great opponent for a early V or early IX. The 25+ IX would be great too. The thing with the XIV is that its a whole new 3d model that isnt even complete. Just because you people saw a couple screenshots that look like a complete 3d model doesnt mean its even close. LOD 1 is a very small part of a 3D model, and if even that isn't complete or perfect, there is a ton of work for Oleg to do. He has stated before that only 1 or 2 third party models have ever submitted work that 1c didn't have to fix to get in the game.

The easiest way to complete the spit planeset would be to put in the early Vs, IXs, and a late IX. The brits would be able to have planes from right after BoB on to the end of the war. Good for airquake point*****s all the way down to people who like to fly the planes that actually helped decide the outcome of the war.

horseback
10-28-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:


4. The Western Allied air forces have NO flyable late-war fighters represented except the experimental YP-80. Everything else is no later than mid-44 production. The LW gets the 109K-4, 190A-9, 190D-9, Ta-152H, Me-262, He-162, and the imaginary Me-109Z.

Much as I want the XIV that simply isn't true. P47D27, P47D, P51C, P51D, Mustang MkIII, Spitfire IX, Spitfire VIII are all examples of fighters flown in 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not just flown-these are all production models-designed, built and operational long before the 190D-9, Ki-84, N1K1/2 or 109K-4 were operational.

There was nowhere near the pressure on the Western Allies to get late-war improved designs to the front, because they had decimated German fighter forces and industry (improved production numbers aside, the quality of manufacture was waaay down by summer 1944) and the existing designs and numerical advantages they had were more than sufficient to maintain their air superiority from the fall of 1944 onwards.

Since Oleg and his team model an a/c's FM according to their ideal factory specs, the actual performance and failings of late-war Japanese and German aircraft are not evident in-game. Conversely, many Western units were quite creative about 'hotrodding' their aircraft and exceeding the 'factory specs,' and these are not reflected in the FMs either.

Thus, we Western red fliers get the dirty end of the stick, development and performance wise. But you should remember that the Mk XIV and the Tempest Mk V were operational (regardless of numbers) well before D-Day, and are long overdue in this sim, along with the definitive F4U-4 and P-47M/N which also saw extensive use before war's end.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
10-28-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:

The easiest way to complete the spit planeset would be to put in the early Vs, IXs, and a late IX. The brits would be able to have planes from right after BoB on to the end of the war. Good for airquake point*****s all the way down to people who like to fly the planes that actually helped decide the outcome of the war.

That would be great! Add a fully rated Fw190A4 and we would have some fantastic Channel fights! (I'm still for the XIV if possible.)

Doug_Thompson
10-28-2005, 04:08 PM
Why do you say that? It took a while for the Mustang III, P-38L Late and P-47D Late to show up. How tough could including a Spit IX +25 be?

Because nobody's been able to do it, much to the obvious disappointment of a loyal, insistant and apparently indefatigable fan base that's been lobbying for it practically since IL-2 came out.

Viper2005_
10-28-2005, 04:08 PM
Good for airquake point*****s all the way down to people who like to fly the planes that actually helped decide the outcome of the war.

What is it with the "holier than thou" attitude around here?

This is a computer game.

Some people like to play it "full switch"; some people like to play it "no switch".

Some people like to fly offline; some people like to fly online.

Some people like to dogfight; some people like to ground pound.

Some people like historical scenarios; some people like "what if" scenarios.

It's all a matter of taste and all approaches to the game are equally valid.

So what's with this "point *****" thing?

Generally speaking, pilots are more important than aircraft.

Sure the Spitfire XIV was a good aircraft. Does that make it any less worthy of inclusion?

We each come to this game from a different perspective.

I used to fly the Spitfire on warclouds back in V3 when first I started flying online.

I then converted to the 190 because it was hard. I wasn't ever a great Spitfire driver, but I just couldn't understand how those 190s did it because whenever I flew them I died. And back in V3, the blue team was almost always outnumbered. As a true Brit, I tend to support the underdog.

So I quit the Spitfire and took up the 190.

I finally taught myself to get kills in the A9 (with 108s), and then 4.01 arrived. Suddenly the 151/20s worked and it all became much easier.

Team balance started to get out of hand as everybody jumped into 190s.

I started flying Spitfires again. I sucked. Part of this was the 4.01 DM. Most of this was the fact that my tactics were off. Part of this was because I had moved beyond the "let's try not to get kicked for an hour" stage.

I could kill 190s with a Mustang III quite easily; engaging them with the Spitfire was generally a zero sum game, mainly because I found myself unable to disengage; my red team buddies, faced with the same problem, found it very hard to help me out.

I taught myself to fly the Mustang III, and found myself performing a lot of jabo runs. Mysteriously, appetite for Fw-190s dropped markedly as soon as ground attack was involved; so I could often switch sides and jabo in the 190. Which was fun. As jabo aircraft go it's pretty hard to beat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Since the patch, the 190 has become rather less popular, and I can fly blue almost all the time.

And here I am, asking for a Spitfire XIV.

The fact is that if we get it, I'll probably hardly ever get to fly it, because I'll be busy balancing teams in my 190.

It'll ruin my stats.

But I still want to see it in the game.

carguy_
10-28-2005, 04:21 PM
No SpitXIV in FB.Ever.Suck on this n00bs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Viper2005_
10-28-2005, 04:42 PM
Thankyou for your contribution.

Now go back to driving and let the rest of us go back to aviating.

faustnik
10-28-2005, 04:51 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around why anyone would not want any of the late war a/c in the sim. I can understand not wanting the Gotha bat plane that never flew, it took resources to place it into the sim that could have been spent elsewhere. The Spit XIV saw plenty of action, why not want to see it included? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Viper2005_
10-28-2005, 04:54 PM
Much as I love the Go229, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

lbhskier37
10-28-2005, 05:02 PM
My opinion of the airquake crowd has only grown so negative as of late because they are the loudest complainers and the sweeky wheel gets the grease. It is starting to become clear that the majority of changes each patch come because of what this crowd wants. The constant need to have the fastest plane, the constant use of warclouds stats as excuses for over/undermodeling (because dog servers are really the pinnacle of realism http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) I do give Oleg props for giving us the new Yak 7, and the new Laggs before, but since AEP came out the majority of new planes in the game have been super late planes to please the few that fly that scene, while the tons of early and midwar planes get pushed later and later. How often do you hear people whining for P-38Gs and Hs, how about P-51As, or P-47Cs? There are plenty of planes for 1944-45 schenerios, how about some allied planes for the early/midwar peroid. I'm fine if people like to play latewar stuff, but there are lots of us that don't and have been ignored ever since AEP came out and latewar WF became the focus.

Monty_Thrud
10-28-2005, 05:05 PM
Well you can definately tell the warbird fans from the gamers...its all become very clear now..its OK for K4's and Doras but hey XIV...OI!...NO!...i have my online stats to think of...do you not know who i am..iam the hero of the Lw...silent majority=offline..they welcome all A/C...vocal minority=onliners of a certain type *cough* Lw *cough*..noooo thank you i have my iron cross to consider...is it raining or Hailing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

lbhskier37
10-28-2005, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Well you can definately tell the warbird fans from the gamers...its all become very clear now..its OK for K4's and Doras but hey XIV...OI!...NO!...i have my online stats to think of...do you not know who i am..iam the hero of the Lw...silent majority=offline..they welcome all A/C...vocal minority=onliners of a certain type *cough* Lw *cough*..noooo thank you i have my iron cross to consider...is it raining or Hailing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

K4s and Doras have been around since IL2. If we didn't have them I would say keep them out too until we get the planes that actually mattered. Lets make a list of stuff we don't have that saw more real combat than K4s, D9s, XIVs, etc...

Mosquito
JU88
Hs-129
Hs-123
Typhoon
Hurricane mkIV
Other Beufighters variants
A-26
Spit mkV early, mkIX early, mkI, mkII
Pe-2,Pe-3
P-38 early variants
P-47Cs
P-51As
Do-17,217
Bf-110c
Hawk 81
countless IJN and IJA planes (not an expert on them)
Devastator
Helldiver
Avenger
MC.20x
G.55
Re.200x
Moraines


I'd trade 1 for 1 any 1944/5 plane for any of those missing planes that took part in the war when the axis still had pilots and fuel to put up a fight. Way more interesting to me and most offliners and online war people.

Monty_Thrud
10-28-2005, 05:40 PM
And still no RAF late war front line fighter...WHY?

Grey_Mouser67
10-28-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Well you can definately tell the warbird fans from the gamers...its all become very clear now..its OK for K4's and Doras but hey XIV...OI!...NO!...i have my online stats to think of...do you not know who i am..iam the hero of the Lw...silent majority=offline..they welcome all A/C...vocal minority=onliners of a certain type *cough* Lw *cough*..noooo thank you i have my iron cross to consider...is it raining or Hailing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I have to agree with you Monty...I've seen most of the people flying online to fall into 2 groups primarily...1) gamers. People who enjoy playing video games, like the action, like the statistics, the thrill of the chase, hunt and kill. They will play virtually any game that is fun and has the level of action and interaction necessary to make it interesting.

2) The WWII nut; the guy who as a child played with army men, built models, bought toy guns and played endlessly with neighbor kids. They are historians and study WWII books of all kinds and can not drive past an aviation air museum without stopping...a person who sheds a tear every time one of the great flying warbirds and pilot are lost.

Those that fit into the number one catagory will tend to resist anything that might threaten their "game". Those that fit into the second category will welcome planes of all types but tend to get dragged down in right/wrong arguements about modelling accuracy...

One calls this a game, the other calls it a hobby. Both are present, and neither is willing to concede their position.

Bring on the Spitfire Mk XIV I say! Too many warbirds are not enough!

Monty_Thrud
10-28-2005, 06:27 PM
Thank you Grey_Mouser67

I dont want to annoy anyone or get into an arguement but i dont understand it...why do people not want these warbirds...i know the XIV isnt going to happen, but using this sim, using FMB...etc...it feels like your their, seeing it as it was, sights you can only imagine in your mind, from books and film clips...ah well...i've said my piece...shut up Monty

VW-IceFire
10-28-2005, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around why anyone would not want any of the late war a/c in the sim. I can understand not wanting the Gotha bat plane that never flew, it took resources to place it into the sim that could have been spent elsewhere. The Spit XIV saw plenty of action, why not want to see it included? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
There is much fear....fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate... oh wait a second http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am partially being serious. There is much fear of the Spitfires and thus the ultimate wartime Spitfire is truly feared. Every time its brought up as a topic, there is alot of carrying on about it being a small inconsequential number. I disagree. Its been pointed out that there were at least 6 frontline squadrons and thats more than enough for me. Meantime we have lots of fun aircraft that never saw service. I enjoy them and wouldn't want to see them taken away but its obvious that there is no ground to stand on for this type of argument. And yet...

Ultimately I think our late war RAF fighter will be fulfilled in the form of the lovely Tempest V. Hopefully she is not crippled or given prototype engines and performance. I want a frontline late 1944/1945 aircraft representing the most typical Tempest in combat (a Sabre IIB, with Hispano V cannons with 200rpg, and no aileron spring tabs). And if Oleg pleases, a Tempest V 1945 with a Sabre IIC with a rotol propeller and +13lbs of boost...but that is a dream...a Closterman dream really ("Le Grande Charles" was of this particular configuration).

lbhskier37
10-28-2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
And still no RAF late war front line fighter...WHY?

You didn't really read my post. I could care less about any latewar planes, its not some "fear" of the british ones. By that time in the war the LW planes didnt have pilots or fuel, what fun is flying in a scenerio like that? I would trade the D9s, K4, Ta, and 262 just to get the Hs129 or some earlywar P38s. The scenerios that those latewar planes are used in might as well have P-80s and Vampires in them because its not like 10 k4s vs. 10 mkXIVs twisting and turning over flak free bases 20 miles apart is any more realistic. Bring on the latewar stuff if it doesnt take time away from making more planes that actually mattered, but history of this game has proved otherwise.

p1ngu666
10-28-2005, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Well you can definately tell the warbird fans from the gamers...its all become very clear now..its OK for K4's and Doras but hey XIV...OI!...NO!...i have my online stats to think of...do you not know who i am..iam the hero of the Lw...silent majority=offline..they welcome all A/C...vocal minority=onliners of a certain type *cough* Lw *cough*..noooo thank you i have my iron cross to consider...is it raining or Hailing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

K4s and Doras have been around since IL2. If we didn't have them I would say keep them out too until we get the planes that actually mattered. Lets make a list of stuff we don't have that saw more real combat than K4s, D9s, XIVs, etc...

Mosquito
JU88
Hs-129
Hs-123
Typhoon
Hurricane mkIV
Other Beufighters variants
A-26
Spit mkV early, mkIX early, mkI, mkII
Pe-2,Pe-3
P-38 early variants
P-47Cs
P-51As
Do-17,217
Bf-110c
Hawk 81
countless IJN and IJA planes (not an expert on them)
Devastator
Helldiver
Avenger
MC.20x
G.55
Re.200x
Moraines


I'd trade 1 for 1 any 1944/5 plane for any of those missing planes that took part in the war when the axis still had pilots and fuel to put up a fight. Way more interesting to me and most offliners and online war people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a26 showed up in november 44, combat trials before that tho..
not many mkIV hurris where made, but it is cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (two 303, 2 40mm anti tank cannons, more armour too)

spit vb ingame is pretty dire performance wise

p47c didnt see much service iirec

p51a, be cool, everyone would want the version with 4 20mm hispano http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

g55 not sure about the more service than xiv, but its italian and cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

incidently, the only japanease plane thats any good is the ki84
ki61=SUCK
ki100=SUCK
ki43=okish
a6m=okish
the betty is okish, apart from the rear turret thing snaps around horribly, and its instable aswell

ppl dont want xiv cos they know it was uber...

Doug_Thompson
10-28-2005, 08:33 PM
Well, I'd argue that the Ki-100 and the "Tony" don't suck against Hellcats at medium altitudes, but they are clearly outclassed by the Corsairs and Mustangs people like to fly online.

I wish there was a flyable George.

p1ngu666
10-28-2005, 08:49 PM
hellcat is abit medicore :\

ki61 and ki100 just seem *really* poor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-28-2005, 08:55 PM
hellcat is abit medicore :\

Only when compared to late-war Corsairs and so forth, or some of the deadlier European types that it rarely faced as Lend-Lease equipment to the British. The Hellcat was the major fighter type that the Japanese had to cope with.

LStarosta
10-28-2005, 09:15 PM
The Spitfire XIV is the ugliest piece of $#17 I've ever seen, therefore it does not deserve to be brought into the sim.

stathem
10-28-2005, 09:45 PM
All the early war British planes (well, not all but you know what I mean) must surely be slated for relativly early inclusion in the BoB series, along with the Italian and French planes in the first couple of add-ons.

This is probably the last chance for 6-7 years, maybe longer, to see the 1944/45 Spitfire.

p1ngu666
10-28-2005, 10:19 PM
indeed stathem, im guesstimating BOB will goto spit IX early/equivelent 190 and 109 period.

we will be doing tours of the med, then who knows where next? russia,pto,cbi.

theres a few deffinative marks of spit
mk1/2 (BoB) mkV most produced, and curiously one i dont really like, mk IX/VIII probably the coming of age of the spit
MKXIV, first with the 2stage griffon, the ultimate "true" spitfire. the later marks like 21/22 had a different wing, faster but not as good in the turn. had 4 20mms tho, so not all bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lufties dont mind the mossie either cos its made of wood, isnt american or german, doesnt have 50cals, defensive armament (hurray! no sniper gunners)

probably wont like it if oleg models it right tho..
faster than a k4, but a 43 plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

but as its a twin, and one of my favourite planes, itll probably be **** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

horseback
10-29-2005, 12:43 PM
p47c didnt see much service iirec I beg your pardon; the P-47C was the first variant to see combat in the spring and summer of 1943, and many were still operational in the spring of 1944, albeit with the upgrades that made it comparable with the early D (water injection, paddleblade prop, centerline tank capacity).

LStarosta, I'm disappointed in you. The Mk XIV is not as delicate looking as the Merlin marks, but it has its own beauty. If you were an Allied pilot operating against Dora-9s over Belgium in the winter of '44, you'd have found it downright sexy...

cheers

horseback

Viper2005_
10-29-2005, 02:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

LStarosta, all I can say is ???

p1ngu666
10-29-2005, 04:07 PM
horseback, soz, thought it was only used briefly, from what id read. maybe they where upgraded to d spec..

Aaron_GT
10-29-2005, 04:32 PM
Pingu is correct - the P47C saw relatively little service as only about 600 were produced. P47C production ended in February 1943. Tens of thousands of P47Ds were produced. Relatively speaking the P47C is a rare bird. Early Ds were essentially identical to late Cs though.

lbhskier37
10-29-2005, 05:45 PM
Well, the point I was trying to make with the P47C was that it would be nice to see some more midwar allied planes. I wasn't aware that it wasn't used much. The more useful plane would be an early P-38 as those were used pretty widely, and there is a big gap in time where the USAAC doesn't have much for fighters in the early war period. True they have the P40, but the P-38 was a very important fighter. It would be cool to have every plane modeled someday, but since I don't see that ever happening, wouldn't it be nice to round out and fill some holes up? Latewar is pretty stacked, Brits have Mustang mkIII, and will have a Tempest. US has P-51D20 although 18+ boost version would be a good addition. Lets not talk about Germany as to get in a flame war. Japan has the Ki-84. The main gaps are with England and US right after BoB with no early spit mkV or early P-38s, although the early P-40s and P-39s we got in PF really helped that situation out. Italy is non-existant. Germany is pretty full for that period, although a non-derated A4 would be welcome. The 1943 planeset it pretty good too, but a early mkIX would really help in addition to the P-38Gs which I presume were still around? Again Germany is stacked but Italy is non-existant. Right now I think the early P-38s are just a dream and would never happen, but the biggest thing that Oleg could do to fill in these gaps without having to model anything would be to give us early mkV and mkIX spits, and a +25lb boost. The XIV would be fine, but you guys don't seem to understand that it isn't complete, and therefores its about as likely as getting a TA184. There are like 4 different models of the Ju88 that have completed models and still aren't going to get in because of the work it takes, so how do you figure that a mkXIV that isn't finished has any real chance of making it.

But why I am so against this mkXIV mainly is because with enough whining I can almost see 1c spending the time to complete it the 3d model, lods, cockpit, etc while all those sweet Ju88 models, which would be more use in many more situations and are far more complete than the mkXIV, just get left because there was no time.

p1ngu666
10-29-2005, 06:56 PM
the japanease have a fair few 44 aircraf actully
61, brace of zero varients, ki84 and ki100

ki84 is the only one that u could really class as good.

the rest would be pushing it to say they past okish. there really really poor, try flying them...

tbh having just flown against the redwulfs, we need a faster spit..

VW-IceFire
10-29-2005, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the japanease have a fair few 44 aircraf actully
61, brace of zero varients, ki84 and ki100

ki84 is the only one that u could really class as good.

the rest would be pushing it to say they past okish. there really really poor, try flying them...

tbh having just flown against the redwulfs, we need a faster spit..
Ki-100 is a good match against most of the late war US aircraft. I had a few fights with Corsairs 1vs1 and they could not get a firing solution on me at all. Its a good plane, not great, but good. The Ki-43's obviously totally obsolete (as it was), the Ki-61 we don't have past 1943 in any real form (the Hei is just a early model with bigger guns) and most of the other Japanese fighters were scarcely better anyways so its no surprise.

The only Japanese aircraft that we don't yet have access to that can compete with the latest of the late war US fighters are the N1K-2J and J2M3. Aside from the Ki-44, we have every major Japanese frontline fighter.

horseback
10-29-2005, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Pingu is correct - the P47C saw relatively little service as only about 600 were produced. P47C production ended in February 1943. Tens of thousands of P47Ds were produced. Relatively speaking the P47C is a rare bird. Early Ds were essentially identical to late Cs though. According to Roger Freeman's Thunderbolt A Documentary History, there were a total of 545 C model Jugs built. The key point here is that most of them saw combat over the Channel Front or New Guinea in the summer/fall of 1943, and as I pointed out, quite a few remained operational well into 1944, even when the pilot could have had a later model D thru D-23.

Check the photos of some of the 56th or 78th FGs taken in the first few months of '44. You'll see a lot of Thunderbolts with fewer cowl flaps than their companions, often being flown by the formation leaders. Those would be the C models that had been especially 'lucky' for their owners, and often, been 'hotrodded' beyond the official specs after long & hard work by the ground crew, work that would have to be repeated on a new issue Jug to get the same performance.

The D model designation continued in production from summer '43 to late 1944, and more than half of these never saw combat, being lost in operational accidents, assigned to Stateside training units, protecting Hawaii, Alaska, the Panama Canal, or being used to bribe-er, um, - equip allied countries' air forces in Latin and South America.

Since the D designation seems to have been given to everything and everything Republic was producing at the time except for its new technology demonstrators(c'mon now, how can they say that the bubbletop model didn't deserve its own letter designator?), it's hardly fair to compare it to the abbreviated C series.

Besides, the P-47 was never as aesthetically pleasing as a Spit XIV.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
10-29-2005, 07:33 PM
nah, the japanease stuff handles like poo, is terribly slow to accel or climb, there just awful

Badsight.
10-29-2005, 08:11 PM
P1ngu , ive flowen with & against you , its not the plane that makes the kills m8

& its the bad pilots that constantly blame the gear

p1ngu666
10-29-2005, 09:11 PM
yeah badsight
but i tried out the ki43,ki61,ki100,ki84,a6m

the zero is okish
the ki84 is pretty good, but its really MUCH MUCH better than ki61 and ki100

flew the la7 briefly today, thats really a joke, no tip stall, naff all torque. handles bad with wingtip damage tho..

Von_Rat
10-30-2005, 03:08 PM
you can have spit14 when me262 is unbanned,,, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Viper2005_
10-30-2005, 04:15 PM
Give us a Spitfire XIV and the 262 may become unbanned from some places.

Actually the 262 isn't really all that scary in this patch anyway. The faster allied piston engined fighters can catch it quite easily if they engage with an energy advantage.

The Spitfire XIV's Griffon gives it a built in energy advantage!

The best way to get the 262 unbanned would be to develop a method of limiting the number of each type of aircraft individually, in order to prevent the entire blue team from flying the 262 if it was made available.

It would be even better if planesets could be controlled as a function of points scored such that you must start out on the low performance aircraft and work up.

This would add a whole new dynamic to dogfight servers.

Buzzsaw-
10-30-2005, 06:25 PM
Salute

Forget the Spit XIV, just finish the Tempest. If we need a uber Spit, then just make a +25 boost version of the IX.

The +25 IX would be just as good as the XIV at low alts, its sea level speed was as fast.

Since most Spit drivers spend their time under 3000 meters, the XIV won't provide any advantage.

Daiichidoku
10-30-2005, 06:47 PM
too bad 262s arent unbanned from more servers

they flame easy, take a great aim to hit things with at speed, only jugs are less manuverable,
endurance is not shiite-hot, plus they have an absolute ceiling of 7000m or so

any allied flyers worth thier salt should welcome 262s

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 06:54 PM
actully there endurance ingame is really good.

irl it was quoted as 45mins to a hour and something?

nice tryin to drag the 262 in there, cant blue fliers cope with contemporary allied aircraft?

Viper2005_
10-30-2005, 07:36 PM
plus they have an absolute ceiling of 7000m or so

Not so. If you fly fast you can go very high indeed...

In fact I just took a 262A1a to 14 km on the crimea map from a 100 m airstart with 75% fuel.

Absolute ceiling is only limited by fuel available.

You've just got to stay fast. Climb at 500 km/hr TAS or more so that you can use 100% power. Never fly slower than 300 km/hr IAS.

At high altitude you can safely use 100% power without risk of overheat.

TAS at 14 km is ~700 km/hr. Because the game doesn't do Mach effects very well there isn't really a coffin corner and you can just keep on climbing if you've got time on your hands and fuel in your tanks.

Try it.

Badsight.
10-30-2005, 11:03 PM
must have changed dramatically in this patch

ever since FB v1.X the Me-262 has hit a wall at 7 - 7.5 Km , run out of climb power , accelleration , tuning ability & wouldnt hold max revs

the overheat reigeme for the 262 must have been altered as well because once you hit 7K they started dropping & once you hold full throttle with lowering revs then the 262 started overheating - regardless of altitude

& at high alt , air-start or no , the 262 is a floating whale so if anything of the above has changed then its a Dramatic change indeed

im all for the best of the best , especially as this is the best WW2 CFS out there , & one thing is Certian - the mk14 would probably be the tuffest opponent to kill for the 262 in the whole game P-80 included , but id rather people were sure first that the Tempest actually is going to make it into FB

Viper2005_
10-31-2005, 02:14 AM
I think this patch likes high altitude flight...

When it first cme out I took a clipped Spitfire VIII to 42,000 feet on warclouds during a lull. It was still climbing (just), but the map ended on me.

All the jets can bust 11 km now. YP-80 is the weakest up high. Go-229 can pass 20 km and will supercruise up there. It can even sustain 60º of bank...

The atmosphere seems broken above ~ 14km as climb performance increases after that for all the jets.

Climb rate is slowest around 7 km, then slow again around 14 km.

Due to the lack of a true coffin corner, absolute ceiling is simply fuel limited.

p1ngu666
10-31-2005, 08:51 AM
hmm
u shouldnt really be able to go above 17,700m metres (just under 60,000ft) if the cockpit isnt pressureised. about that height your blood would boil http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

GBrutus
10-31-2005, 04:06 PM
Another vote for the Mk.XIV here chaps. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Arm_slinger
10-31-2005, 05:40 PM
Another vote from me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Viper2005_
11-01-2005, 01:20 PM
That's right folks - keep those votes coming in! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tomtheyak
11-01-2005, 03:55 PM
Top 5 reasons to get mkXIV done...

1) External model complete! Gotta be way ahead of some candidates on this area alone - not sure bout the LODs tho...(mind you at most distances you could probably get away with the MKVIIIs)

2) Minimal conversion for existing cockpit required - it doesn't have to have the gyro sight - the early to mid 44 variants wouldnt have had em.

3) Would complement the tempest for those late war fights - tempest for low alt spit for Hi!

4) 2000HP!!!! In a spit! whats not to like?!!

5) It looks GORGEOUS. PERIOD. Man I couldn't care less if it was banned from every server on HL - I just want to fly it. I often get the urge to just go 'bimble' offline in a plane on a random map. I just want to fly.

And why do we care if anybody whines? At the end of the day, it's a WWII aircraft in a WWII sim.
Hey, i'd happily see ANY new a/c, Italian, IJN/IJA in particular (oh and some torp bombers too..) but failing 3D models for some of these a/c then lets get the XIV in.

OK, i'm a bit bias but if you got a good 3D model going for anything that fits Il2/PFs purview then I'm behind it all the way.

OldMan___
11-02-2005, 10:56 AM
IF i remember well last time oleg spoke about Spit 14 he said there was soemthing wrong on models (don 't remember if it was external or cockpit).


But he looked more willing to accept a 25 lb MK9, although he said he would not PROMISSE it.

VW-IceFire
11-02-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by OldMan___:
IF i remember well last time oleg spoke about Spit 14 he said there was soemthing wrong on models (don 't remember if it was external or cockpit).


But he looked more willing to accept a 25 lb MK9, although he said he would not PROMISSE it.
My vote would be on the cockpit. The external was a direct modification of the already complete and finished Mark VIII and it was in good shape as its already in the game and was not heavily modified to be made to work with the game.

The cockpit may have been the issue. In which case it may be nixed simply because we don't need another allied fighter to be just an AI aircraft. We all want to fly it...its like the tease that the Tempest V AI is right now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
11-02-2005, 06:20 PM
hmm
would a spit IX 25lb boost be fast enuff to brandish "faster than the luftwaffe" down the side?
im really not sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XIV would be handy cos i could stick "sux my 5 bladed prop luft****" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kuna15
11-02-2005, 07:32 PM
99 yes 44 no http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif. Anyway... introducing Mk.14 in game would mean some radical changes in FB ETO late war, so I guess when we think of it that way, it is understandable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Voted yes.

stathem
11-03-2005, 08:49 AM
I know it€s not going to happen, but another good reason to include the XIV is that it would be a real expert€s Spitfire. With its€ huge amount of power and obscene quantities of torque turning the opposite way and threatening to flip you over at the mere twitch of the throttle, it would be a real beast, a bit like the.. monstrously .€¦.difficult€¦.€¦.K4€¦.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Oh that€s not quite right is it?http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

nsu
11-03-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by pdog1:
uh the spit mk XIV sucks and nobody wants it. We wall want the Spit mk I.

yes the SpitI is better for the game as the SpitXIV
no more UFO`s (1945/46 Planes)!


Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Nubarus
11-03-2005, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by NSU:
yes the SpitI is better for the game as the SpitXIV
no more UFO`s (1945/46 Planes)!

Spitfire Mk XVI entered service in January 1944 with the No 610 Squardon, followed in March 1944 with No 91 and the No 322 Squadrons.
Then in August 1944 No 130, 350 and 402 received their Spitfire Mk XVI's.

The Spitfire Mk XVI reached full opperational status in the Spring of 1944.

So this plane does not fit into your bogus 1945/46 UFO **** list.

From my point of view it's pretty obvious why you don't want it in this sim.

goshikisen
11-03-2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NSU:
yes the SpitI is better for the game as the SpitXIV
no more UFO`s (1945/46 Planes)!

Spitfire Mk XVI entered service in January 1944 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nubarus, are you talking about the Spit 14 or 16?

nsu
11-03-2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NSU:
yes the SpitI is better for the game as the SpitXIV
no more UFO`s (1945/46 Planes)!

Spitfire Mk XVI entered service in January 1944 with the No 610 Squardon, followed in March 1944 with No 91 and the No 322 Squadrons.
Then in August 1944 No 130, 350 and 402 received their Spitfire Mk XVI's.

The Spitfire Mk XVI reached full opperational status in the Spring of 1944.

So this plane does not fit into your bogus 1945/46 UFO **** list.

From my point of view it's pretty obvious why you don't want it in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read in War 1944, so you must fly against late German planes as like
Me262 July 1944,
Me165 I.JG 400 May 1944
do you like this?
but the coming Do335 is a UFO to!
The Planes 1935 to 1944 are the best Planes for IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Why faster and better?


Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Interminate
11-03-2005, 11:49 AM
You can have all the spits back, I don't want any.
JU88 all versions is better.

Sturmvogel0815
11-03-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NSU:
yes the SpitI is better for the game as the SpitXIV
no more UFO`s (1945/46 Planes)!

Spitfire Mk XVI entered service in January 1944 with the No 610 Squardon, followed in March 1944 with No 91 and the No 322 Squadrons.
Then in August 1944 No 130, 350 and 402 received their Spitfire Mk XVI's.

The Spitfire Mk XVI reached full opperational status in the Spring of 1944.

So this plane does not fit into your bogus 1945/46 UFO **** list.

From my point of view it's pretty obvious why you don't want it in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, what du you thinking about the F14 Tomcat??? This is exactly what we need - faster, stronger, . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

horseback
11-03-2005, 12:09 PM
The Mk XVI (16) was the Packard Merlin (V-1650, same as in the Mustang) engine variant of the late-model Mk IX (9). The Packard engine used SAE type bolts and screws, whereas the Rolls Royce Merlin version used (I believe) metric standard fasteners, requiring Mk XVI squadrons to use the different SAE standard tool kits, hence, the segregation of the Mk XVI into seperate Squadrons and Wings. Other than that, performance and appearance wise, there was little difference between the Mk XVI and the late model Mk IX, AFAIK.

We already have the late-model Mk IX; therefore, for all intents and purposes, we have the Mk XVI too (although it would be nice to have a 'bubbletop' late MK IX/XVI Spit).

This thread is about the Mk XIV(14) Spitfire.

The Mk XIV(14) used a Roll Royce Griffon engine, and went operational with 41 Squadron, which traded in their low alt optimized Griffon equipped Mk XIIs for the new type in late 1943. A number of Squadrons followed 41, although they were largely used primarily for defending Southern England from the occasional 'tip and run' raider and V-1 buzz bombs until the fall of 1944, when a trickle of Squadrons made it across the Channel to join the Mk IX/XVI wings fighting over in the European mainland. These were supplemented very late in the European theater by Mk XVIII(18) Spits, which were outwardly very similar to late model 'bubbletop' XIVs.

Both the Mk XIV(14) and Mk XVIII(18) saw some extensive use in the CBI theater in 1945, largely replacing the Mk VIII(8) shortly after war's end in that theater.

The Mk XIV was a 'player' in both the ETO and the CBI, and deserves to be included in this sim.

I wouldn't overreach and demand the Mk XVI or the MK XVIII.

cheers

horseback

Nubarus
11-03-2005, 03:08 PM
So I made a little typo, I meant the XIV.

And NSU, in your retort you still didn't answer why you initially said that the Spitfire XIV was a 45/46 plane.....

As for flying against those planes you suggested, I don't really care.
In it's current state the RAF doesn't have any late 44 or 45 planes flyable in this sim while the rest of the major countries involved do.

Nubarus
11-03-2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Sturmvogel0815:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NSU:
yes the SpitI is better for the game as the SpitXIV
no more UFO`s (1945/46 Planes)!

Spitfire Mk XVI entered service in January 1944 with the No 610 Squardon, followed in March 1944 with No 91 and the No 322 Squadrons.
Then in August 1944 No 130, 350 and 402 received their Spitfire Mk XVI's.

The Spitfire Mk XVI reached full opperational status in the Spring of 1944.

So this plane does not fit into your bogus 1945/46 UFO **** list.

From my point of view it's pretty obvious why you don't want it in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, what du you thinking about the F14 Tomcat??? This is exactly what we need - faster, stronger, . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who was talking about an F14 again?

Oh yeah, it was you.....

Nubarus
11-03-2005, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
Nubarus, are you talking about the Spit 14 or 16?

14, sorry.

I typed that message up after a hard 11 hour day at work welding up pipes.

HayateAce
11-03-2005, 04:04 PM
Bring on the 14.



http://www.air-and-space.com/20050522%20Chino/DSC_1457%20P-47D%20NX47RP%20Big%20Chief%20right%20side%20take-off%20m.jpg

Grey_Mouser67
11-03-2005, 06:49 PM
If the Mk XIV early models did not have a gyro gunsight, there is really no good reason to not have it. The Mk VIII cockpit is a simple plug and play...not like we got the K-14 in the Jug and Lightning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Oleg, you need to listen you your fanbase...I know we are the vocal minority...little better than a special interest group...but we are your most avid and loyal customers...if you can please the majority of us, you can rule the world! or at least the world of WWII flight sims....ohhh you already do....well then you can keep on ruling the world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
11-03-2005, 11:25 PM
its cos it has uber performance (equal to lw aircraft), thats why those who dont know put it as a 45 type. also how on EARTH could anyone outperform the lw aircraft at any point in time, never mind for 6months~

lbhskier37
11-04-2005, 12:31 AM
Its fun to dream, but you guys just aren't seeing that this isn't going to happen. There are 4 versions of the JU88 that have complete externals and internal that arent going to make the game because it takes so much work to get them correctly into the engine. These models have been done for over a year now! The spit XIV doesn't have a complete cockpit or external, how do you think they will put it in? You should be sending Oleg data and hoping for a realistic goal like getting a spit mkIX with 25lb boost. Of course everyone is going to flame me because I must be a luftwhiner for saying this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You guys need to get real, mkXIV isn't going to happen, and if it is I'm done on here because there have been 4 versions of the Ju88 ready for a year and they won't be in the game. If this mkXIV gets in the game over them its HOR5ESH1T, just like it would be if some latewar axis plane that wasn't completed got modeled in before the JU.

stathem
11-04-2005, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Its fun to dream, but you guys just aren't seeing that this isn't going to happen. There are 4 versions of the JU88 that have complete externals and internal that arent going to make the game because it takes so much work to get them correctly into the engine. These models have been done for over a year now! The spit XIV doesn't have a complete cockpit or external, how do you think they will put it in? You should be sending Oleg data and hoping for a realistic goal like getting a spit mkIX with 25lb boost. Of course everyone is going to flame me because I must be a luftwhiner for saying this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You guys need to get real, mkXIV isn't going to happen, and if it is I'm done on here because there have been 4 versions of the Ju88 ready for a year and they won't be in the game. If this mkXIV gets in the game over them its HOR5ESH1T, just like it would be if some latewar axis plane that wasn't completed got modeled in before the JU.

You mean, like the Do-335?

lbhskier37
11-04-2005, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Its fun to dream, but you guys just aren't seeing that this isn't going to happen. There are 4 versions of the JU88 that have complete externals and internal that arent going to make the game because it takes so much work to get them correctly into the engine. These models have been done for over a year now! The spit XIV doesn't have a complete cockpit or external, how do you think they will put it in? You should be sending Oleg data and hoping for a realistic goal like getting a spit mkIX with 25lb boost. Of course everyone is going to flame me because I must be a luftwhiner for saying this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You guys need to get real, mkXIV isn't going to happen, and if it is I'm done on here because there have been 4 versions of the Ju88 ready for a year and they won't be in the game. If this mkXIV gets in the game over them its HOR5ESH1T, just like it would be if some latewar axis plane that wasn't completed got modeled in before the JU.

You mean, like the Do-335? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No more like the Ta152C, which was started but never completed. I could also care less about the Do, but it was done before the model deadline. The deadline was how long ago now? I think you guys need to be realistic, and getting some backing for the 25lb boost spit would probably be a lot more useful than this thread. If someone would have completed the XIV model before the deadline it would be in.

nsu
11-04-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Nubarus:
So I made a little typo, I meant the XIV.

And NSU, in your retort you still didn't answer why you initially said that the Spitfire XIV was a 45/46 plane.....

As for flying against those planes you suggested, I don't really care.
In it's current state the RAF doesn't have any late 44 or 45 planes flyable in this sim while the rest of the major countries involved do.


The SpitXIV fly in War end 1944, so it is more 1945 as like 1944!
Why not a SpitI, it is better for the Game!
1940 is 1:1
1944 is 1:20
so you must have
20 Planes for one german Plane make this fun?
or fight spitXIV to Me262?
Why ist the Me262 and Me163 banned on the most online Server?

so 1935- early1944 Planes ar the better Way for a WW2Sim!


sorry for my bad english!

Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
11-04-2005, 08:55 AM
id like the ju88 too... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BSA 650
11-04-2005, 09:54 AM
before you dream about the SpitXIV, the FM/ should be corrected to the Spitfire Serie Endless Loop!
so it is a action Spitfire planes!
Oleg plesae more real FM and no Action FM in the Game!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aaron_GT
11-04-2005, 01:36 PM
You should be sending Oleg data and hoping for a realistic goal like getting a spit mkIX with 25lb boost.

That was done a whilw ago.

MEGILE
11-04-2005, 02:22 PM
Spit XIV? I'd take one if I HAD to... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Viper2005_
11-04-2005, 02:51 PM
Spitfire XIV is the way to go.

And being "realistic" = being mediocre.

Far better to aim high and miss than not to try at all!

Lots of us want the Spitfire XIV. If we keep asking then the worst that can happen is that it doesn't make it into the sim.

Maybe we'll at least get a +25psi IX as a consolation prize.

If not, at least we tried.

Grey_Mouser67
11-04-2005, 02:59 PM
Oleg watches these forums...if we are persistant, there is a good chance he will try to please us as he has done it in the past many times.

The Mk XIV is a very popular mark and this game is starving for late war planes, there is a finished external and the MkVIII pit would do be fine by virtually all of us so....

It is really a matter of priorities...if Oleg can't finish them all...how does he decide which ones to include??? I would hope he combines popular demand with a touch of practicality around completion of his game...that would put planes like the Mosquito, Tempest, Ju-88, Mk XIV, Mc202 right at the top of the list....along wiht Ki27 etc...those fantasy planes aught to be last to go in...we'll see what his priorities are like...who knows, he might be going first in first out...that would be unfortunate.

Nubarus
11-04-2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by NSU:
The SpitXIV fly in War end 1944, so it is more 1945 as like 1944!
Why not a SpitI, it is better for the Game!
1940 is 1:1
1944 is 1:20
so you must have
20 Planes for one german Plane make this fun?
or fight spitXIV to Me262?
Why ist the Me262 and Me163 banned on the most online Server?

so 1935- early1944 Planes ar the better Way for a WW2Sim!


sorry for my bad english!

Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

So according to you Spring 1944 is the end of the year?
Okay.....

We will get the Spitfire I in BoB so I absolutely see no reason why it should be in FB.

Why ask me why your precious little 262 and 163 are banned from online servers, ask the server hosts or better yet, Go host your own server and stop whining about what other people decide to do on THEIR server

Maybe you missed this bit but I am a member of the 322 Historic Flight Team and I already posted that the 322 where flying the Mk XIV's as well as the Mk V's and IX's.

So the only plane missing for our Demo flights is the XIV.

And still the fact remains that the LW, VVS and the USAAF all have high power late war propellor planes as well as jets while the RAF has neither of them......

p1ngu666
11-04-2005, 03:27 PM
but u cant host teh warclouds yourself, only sparx can host teh warclouds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

goshikisen
11-04-2005, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
You guys need to get real, mkXIV isn't going to happen, and if it is I'm done on here because there have been 4 versions of the Ju88 ready for a year and they won't be in the game. If this mkXIV gets in the game over them its HOR5ESH1T, just like it would be if some latewar axis plane that wasn't completed got modeled in before the JU.

I recall that when the flyable B-29 model was turned down the main reason given was that it would take about 10 times as much effort to get it ready for inclusion as compared to a single seater. A Ju-88 is considerably smaller than a Superfortress but it certainly isn't a single seater. If the XIV external model is virtually finished and an already existing cockpit can be used to make it flyable... wouldn't it take a great deal less effort to get it into the game as compared to a Junkers? I can't see how an almost finished single seat fighter and an already finished medium bomber are comparable. Getting them into the engine... I wouldn't doubt the Maddox Games folks would see an easier way with the Spit.

VW-IceFire
11-04-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
You guys need to get real, mkXIV isn't going to happen, and if it is I'm done on here because there have been 4 versions of the Ju88 ready for a year and they won't be in the game. If this mkXIV gets in the game over them its HOR5ESH1T, just like it would be if some latewar axis plane that wasn't completed got modeled in before the JU.

I recall that when the flyable B-29 model was turned down the main reason given was that it would take about 10 times as much effort to get it ready for inclusion as compared to a single seater. A Ju-88 is considerably smaller than a Superfortress but it certainly isn't a single seater. If the XIV external model is virtually finished and an already existing cockpit can be used to make it flyable... wouldn't it take a great deal less effort to get it into the game as compared to a Junkers? I can't see how an almost finished single seat fighter and an already finished medium bomber are comparable. Getting them into the engine... I wouldn't doubt the Maddox Games folks would see an easier way with the Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well...we have been waiting for the Ju-88 than we have had the possibility of a Mark XIV in the game.

The story of the Mark XIV is actually sort of sad.

There was one under production for years...quite a few years. With some progress for quite some time and then it petered out, died, but with no word. So with only a few months to spare I messaged a variety of people to see if there was interest...there was some and we tried to get it done. But that also failed as communication broke down.

I wish I had the tools and the talent as I would have done it myself...but I have not and am restricted to making posts like this one.

Badsight.
11-04-2005, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
If the Mk XIV early models did not have a gyro gunsight. . . .The Mk VIII cockpit is a simple plug and play . . . good point !

would make putting the Mk14 into the game less work no ?

p1ngu666
11-04-2005, 08:44 PM
pretty much same pit, so yeah...

with the b29 i dunno http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
ju88 IS really complex tho, its smaller than the tb3 but czech out the simpleness of tb3, size dont really matter...

Buzzsaw-
11-05-2005, 12:47 AM
Salute

Since this thread is a wishlist...

My personal preference for flyable aircraft being addons in order of priority are:

1944 Tempest +7 boost
1945 Tempest +11 boost (same model as above except boost gauge)
Macchi C-202
Macchi C-200
Macchi C-205
H-75A (P-36) (so we can have a Battle of France)
Ju-88A
1944 P-47D22 67 inch MAP (no graphic change except boost gauge)
+25 Spitfire IXc LF (no graphic change except boost gauge)

For non-flyable:

SM-79 (Italian Twin engined torpedo/level bomber.

We need more Italian planes.

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6218/mc2027hp.jpg

C-202 in forground, C-200 and possibly a SM-79 in background.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 01:47 AM
1944 Tempest +7 boost

AFAIK the minimum boost for Tempests was +9, which seems to be what we have in the game, and was pretty unusual as +11 was more common, with up to +13 being used.

ImpStarDuece
11-05-2005, 02:36 AM
+7 boost is the boost level for a pure vanilla Sabre II, usually fitted to early(ish) Typhoons. Sabre engines saw approval for +9 lbs in August of 1943, boosting low level performance.

By 1944 the Tempests were fitted with Sabre IIa or IIb engines, all of which flew with +9 lbs standard, +11 lbs with 150 octane (which was later found to be unnecessary for that boost level) and some flew with Sabre IIc engines, which could push +13lbs on 150 octane.

Badsight.
11-05-2005, 03:04 AM
just as long as the Tempest makes it !

i so badly dont want it to remain AI only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

P1 , those b-29 pit pictures looked ok but thats meaningless as to how useable the 3D modeling was to Maddox Games requirements

Bremspropeller
11-05-2005, 04:59 AM
Bring on the fourteen.

goshikisen
11-05-2005, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
pretty much same pit, so yeah...

with the b29 i dunno http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
ju88 IS really complex tho, its smaller than the tb3 but czech out the simpleness of tb3, size dont really matter...

I'm not really lamenting the loss of the B-29 ( I'm very interested in the Superfortress... just don't think it's appropriate for this particular sim) or any other bomber for that matter... just observing that a bomber has a number of different stations that must be built into the Maddox IL2 engine. Single seaters represent less work than bombers... so to say that a fighter shouldn't be included because a bomber hasn't been doesn't make much sense.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 05:10 AM
just as long as the Tempest makes it !

As long as it has +11 performance.

p1ngu666
11-05-2005, 07:07 AM
yes i agree with u both, just mearly pointing out teh size isnt the problem, its the complexity. a b29 would allow me to sim being in a lanc or a stirling tho....

Bremspropeller
11-05-2005, 07:11 AM
But you'd like to fly it historicly correct:

This would require larger maps and larger a/c formations (think of boxes).

HeinzBar
11-05-2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">just as long as the Tempest makes it !

As long as it has +11 performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you wouldn't take a Tempest if it doesn't have a minimum of +11lbs? We are picky arent' we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HB

OldMan____
11-05-2005, 08:29 AM
I already find the AI tempest the hardest enemy to face offline on WF. I still can't defeat them in equal numbers while in a late 190 more than 1/3 of times.

Just bringing it to game would already be a deep change on sky.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 08:56 AM
You mean you wouldn't take a Tempest if it doesn't have a minimum of +11lbs? We are picky arent' we?

Anything less than +11 is unrepresentative and would be better called a Typhoon. As it is we should not have rockets on the Tempest (it was cleared for them, but not used with them operationally during WW2 for reasons that are not clear to me).

bolillo_loco
11-05-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You mean you wouldn't take a Tempest if it doesn't have a minimum of +11lbs? We are picky arent' we?

Anything less than +11 is unrepresentative and would be better called a Typhoon. As it is we should not have rockets on the Tempest (it was cleared for them, but not used with them operationally during WW2 for reasons that are not clear to me). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

considering how many aircraft we have in this game that were either: A. not used in actual combat; B. used in such limited numbers ie 250 or less; C. have all sorts of non historical armament; D. do not have additional armament that was a field modification and saw quite a bit of service in specific theaters of operation; E. are unable to reach or exceed the performace as stated by many books; and finally F. were prototypes or never got off the drawing board.

well in light of all this, why should be begin to split hairs with the Tempest?

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 05:10 PM
It would be like not having the P38L late and saying that wanting proper P38L performance is splitting hairs...

lbhskier37
11-05-2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
pretty much same pit, so yeah...

with the b29 i dunno http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
ju88 IS really complex tho, its smaller than the tb3 but czech out the simpleness of tb3, size dont really matter...

I'm not really lamenting the loss of the B-29 ( I'm very interested in the Superfortress... just don't think it's appropriate for this particular sim) or any other bomber for that matter... just observing that a bomber has a number of different stations that must be built into the Maddox IL2 engine. Single seaters represent less work than bombers... so to say that a fighter shouldn't be included because a bomber hasn't been doesn't make much sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was that the Ju88 cockpits have been completed and sent to 1c for well over a year, while the XIV still has no cockpit at all and not a complete external. There is no reason to have a plane be built by maddox now, 6 months or so after the model deadline when models of the Ju88 that have been submitted for well over a year go to waste. But I continue to see that the loudest complainers and therefore that maddox bows down to are the Warclouds bunch who only want the fastest and best, while the silent majority of offliners and online war people get forgotten.

p1ngu666
11-05-2005, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
I already find the AI tempest the hardest enemy to face offline on WF. I still can't defeat them in equal numbers while in a late 190 more than 1/3 of times.

Just bringing it to game would already be a deep change on sky.

really? there really much to slow... not normaly a challange, try in a a5/6, there the new best imo

VW-IceFire
11-05-2005, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">just as long as the Tempest makes it !

As long as it has +11 performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you wouldn't take a Tempest if it doesn't have a minimum of +11lbs? We are picky arent' we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+11lbs of boost would be representative of any service Tempest flying in 1944...anything lower would not really be a operational Tempest.

It'd be like...well I don't really know but a FW190A-4 operating at the ATA allowed for the A-1 or a prototype or something.

Its probably a silly statement to think or argue about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The vast majority of Tempests, operating over Europe, were Series II Tempests with Sabre IIA or IIB engines with +11 lbs or +13 lbs of boost. Some, such as Pierre Closterman's "Le Grande Charles" was a late Series II with a Sabre IIC, Rotol Propeller, and I believe his was allowed for +13lbs of boost...a real performer.

It might be unfair to include that version...and rather have something more representative of the entire late 1944 early 1945 battle. If Oleg were willing, a Tempest V 1945 to supplement a Tempest V 1944 would be just fine too...but we'll take one flyable Tempest for start http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think a Tempest would be more fun to fly than the Spitfire XIV...but thats just me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HeinzBar
11-05-2005, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
It'd be like...well I don't really know but a FW190A-4 operating at the ATA allowed for the A-1 or a prototype or something....

..I think a Tempest would be more fun to fly than the Spitfire XIV...but thats just me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!,
I thought the axis were operating a derated Fw a4. I couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I completely agree w/ the addition of the tempest before another spit variant. I can easily imagine myself flying the tempest even if 9lb boost model was given to us. The tempest just looks serious w/ those 4xhispanos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HB

p1ngu666
11-05-2005, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
The tempest just looks serious w/ those 4xhispanos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HB

nah there not tbh, the series 1 that stick out look abit silly imo, series 2 look tidy tho.

your getting confused with the typhoon, a commen mistake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///tiffy1.jpg

a tiffy takes off, with those 4 20mm cannon as a side arm. 8 60lb rockets hang underneath the wings, ready to deal death to anything they hit. same hitting power as a broadside from a cruiser http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

pulled into battle by the 1 ton monster, napier sabre. the 4 bladed prop struggles to take the power, its secondary role, chopping up the souls of those it kills to feed the engine.

to a german soldier, to be attacked by tiffies would probably start with the sky above turning red, and then like primevil hunters, the typhoon pack attacks, the strage noise of there engines increasing to a wail as they dive at full power past 500mph. the cannons bark there death, the ground explodes. then the rockets rain down, shrieking down, huge blasts send trucks, cars and even tanks up into the air, then crashing down, in flames. and as soon as it started there gone, just the quiet after the storm, flak and guns fire away in the background.
and u only survived cos u was hiding under a crash jug/b17 ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//typhoonpwn.jpg

kubanloewe
11-06-2005, 07:47 AM
Typhon with 4 Hispanos looks more dangerous than any Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

VW-IceFire
11-06-2005, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
It'd be like...well I don't really know but a FW190A-4 operating at the ATA allowed for the A-1 or a prototype or something....

..I think a Tempest would be more fun to fly than the Spitfire XIV...but thats just me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!,
I thought the axis were operating a derated Fw a4. I couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I completely agree w/ the addition of the tempest before another spit variant. I can easily imagine myself flying the tempest even if 9lb boost model was given to us. The tempest just looks serious w/ those 4xhispanos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wont touch that first one with a ten foot pole http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I can't see Oleg giving us a +9lb boost as it would be terribly ahistorical...although the AI model at present has ahistorical weapons and ammo capacity...so I worry a tad. Still I've sent my data in and hope that when the proper attention is given things will be set right. I can only assume they just wanted to make sure it was in with minimum fuss.

I'll be happy so long as its a contender, I can fly it, and it performs to spec. Nothing above and nothing below...that'd make my day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And besides...I'll probably be ground pounding with it anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
11-06-2005, 10:12 AM
I'd still rather fly a +18 Spitfire XIV than a +11 Tempest in air combat... Of course ground pounding is another matter!

Oh and BTW, don't complain too much about the A-4; the Spitfires in game at present are massively derated by 1944/45 standards at only +18... going to a realistic +25 would buy another 400 bhp or so, which is no minor consideration!

VW-IceFire
11-06-2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I'd still rather fly a +18 Spitfire XIV than a +11 Tempest in air combat... Of course ground pounding is another matter!

Oh and BTW, don't complain too much about the A-4; the Spitfires in game at present are massively derated by 1944/45 standards at only +18... going to a realistic +25 would buy another 400 bhp or so, which is no minor consideration!
Ok...that first bit there begs the question: why?

- The Spitfire XIV, as great as it is, is only truly special from the IX above 26,000 feet.
- In altitudes between 0 and 20,000 feet its slower than the Tempest.
- Its handling is the least generous of any of the Spitfires, although that doesn't necessarily mean it was difficult to fly as the Spitfires were generally regarded as being quite friendly.
-Narrow track undercarriage had its disadvantages.
- Elevator design remained unchanged meaning, despite its high top speed, would be more difficult to maintain a good speed with which to manuever in.

I'm a fan of the aircraft and would love to fly it...but it isn't all good. The Tempest is not easy on the handling but its faster at some important combat altitudes, optimized for speed, has greater firepower, slightly better visibility, and so on.

This is definately not a, one is better than the other, because the two are extremely complementary to each other and it'd be really good to have both in the same fight as they match each others abilities quite expertly.

But I'd love to see what you think too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
11-06-2005, 01:37 PM
a extra 25-35mph at all alts not handy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

spit should have decent elivator at highspeed too, alirons get stiff, so does rudder probably, game probably has it stiffenin up like a mk1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Viper2005_
11-06-2005, 03:10 PM
I would rather fly the Spitfire than the Tempest in air combat because the Spitfire would be more likely to get me home from a sticky situation.

If I stay fast it's a great energy fighter. If I mess up and get slow, I've got bags of excess power and can give the stallfighters a run for their money.

It climbs like a rocket, and can fight effectively at almost any height.

It's world-beating tactically useable Mach number would be a key advantage at higher altitudes.

Of course, ground pounding is a different matter.

Griffons also tended to be slightly more reliable than Sabres if memory serves...

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 03:40 PM
The Tempest is not easy on the handling

Better than the Typhoon, though, apparently. The worst handling Spitfire should be the Mk. 21, but barely used in WW2. CofG problems were the root of the Mk. 21's problems, fixed in the Mk.22.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 03:43 PM
Of course ground pounding is another matter!

Although the Tempest was used for ground pounding it wasn't its primary role as that was low level interception where the Spitfires were a bit slow. Rockets weren't used in WW2 (or to be pedantic, all the references I have seen have said that they weren't) which were one of the primary ground pounding weapons of the Typhoons.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 03:46 PM
Griffons also tended to be slightly more reliable than Sabres if memory serves...

The Sabres had a reputation for being unreliable which only really applied to the early versions of the II. By the time the later IIs in the Tempest apparently reliability was good. But the hint of unreliability followed Napier engines due to the early Sabres and issues with some of the esoteric experimental Napier engines prior and early WW2, for example in the Hereford.

VW-IceFire
11-06-2005, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I would rather fly the Spitfire than the Tempest in air combat because the Spitfire would be more likely to get me home from a sticky situation.

If I stay fast it's a great energy fighter. If I mess up and get slow, I've got bags of excess power and can give the stallfighters a run for their money.

It climbs like a rocket, and can fight effectively at almost any height.

It's world-beating tactically useable Mach number would be a key advantage at higher altitudes.

Of course, ground pounding is a different matter.

Griffons also tended to be slightly more reliable than Sabres if memory serves...
Fair enough...but I don't think you've done enough reading on either aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Spitfire XIV is not as good of an energy fighter as the Tempest as the Tempest has even better aerodynamics, weighs more, dives faster, and has a better zoom climb.

You are indeed right about the climb. The XIV is pretty much better than anything else in the Allied inventory. The Tempest is not as good in this respect.

In terms of dives, the Tempest was better at it. Case in point. A chapter in Pierre Closterman's book details a discussion between Spitfire XIV and Tempest pilots. The discussion is not unlike the one we're having here (I think they ultimately decided to go and drink beer - perhaps we should as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). But the key aspect of that little talk they had was that a Spitfire pilot was bragging about the interception and shoot down of a Ar-234 (a German Jet bomber if you are not familiar with the type). The Spitfire dove on the jet and eventually caught and shot it down. Unfortunately, the Spitfire itself was a total writeoff as the airframe had bent, the paint on the wings had completely chipped off, and the wings themselves were also in bad shape. A Tempest caught doing the same thing would live to fly the next mission without issue. It was a much sturdier airframe and with laminar flow wings for better speed performance.

Griffons and Sabre IIB's were about the same for reliability. Give or take. Most of the problems, engine fires, leaks, and the like were caused by bad maitenence and early engine design problems.

Par for par, both aircraft are excellent and top in their form. Again, I'm a huge fan of both types...but I think the Tempest is the one that you'd want to get out of a scrape in better than a Spitfire XIV.

All that I've written...in the name of friendly debate.

Now onto beer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.neonsign.com/eng_tackers/images/mooseheadbottletin.jpg

Viper2005_
11-06-2005, 05:18 PM
Although the Tempest was used for ground pounding it wasn't its primary role as that was low level interception where the Spitfires were a bit slow. Rockets weren't used in WW2 (or to be pedantic, all the references I have seen have said that they weren't) which were one of the primary ground pounding weapons of the Typhoons.

In the absence of a flyable Typhoon, I suspect that the Tempest will be used to great effect as a ground attack aircraft. AFAIK, it's getting rockets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

VW-IceFire
11-06-2005, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although the Tempest was used for ground pounding it wasn't its primary role as that was low level interception where the Spitfires were a bit slow. Rockets weren't used in WW2 (or to be pedantic, all the references I have seen have said that they weren't) which were one of the primary ground pounding weapons of the Typhoons.

In the absence of a flyable Typhoon, I suspect that the Tempest will be used to great effect as a ground attack aircraft. AFAIK, it's getting rockets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can count on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Viper2005_
11-06-2005, 05:54 PM
The Spitfire could be out-dived by various bigger, heavier fighters, but they tended to run into trouble doing so, ranging from buffet and snake to "graveyard dives".

The Griffon Spitfire was capable of 500 mph IAS without structural failure (problems tended to start at ~ 520 mph when the radiator doors had a habbit of falling off).

It had a tactically useful Mach number in excess of Mach 0.80 (~M0.82 if memory serves), and was taken to Mach 0.89 by the High Speed Flight of the RAe. On a flight to Mach 0.89, the reduction gear failed and the airscrew departed the aircraft. This caused a significant migration of the centre of gravity, causing an uncommanded +11 g pullout. The airframe was damaged, but a safe landing was executed.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg

Until the advent of the F-86 the Spitfire was to all intents and purposes the fastest useful fighter in the world going downhill.


Flying Limitations of the Spitfire IX (from Pilot's Notes)
Maximum speeds in m.p.h I.A.S.
Diving (without external stores), corresponding to a Mach No. of -85:

Between S.L. and 20,000 ft. -450
20,000 and 25,000 ft. -430
25,000 and 30,000 ft. -390
30,000 and 35,000 ft. -340
Above 35,000 ft. -310


As I've pulled this from the internet I couldn't find the position error. However some simple calculations using a stadard atmosphere calculator suggest that the ASI is under reading by ~ 12 mph at 340 mph IAS (ie Mach 0.85 = 352 mph EAS at 30,000 feet).

The Tempest V Pilot's notes impose the following limitations:


Diving below:

30,000 feet .. .. .. 370 mph IAS
25,000 feet .. .. .. 410 mph IAS
20,000 feet .. .. .. 450 mph IAS
15,000 feet .. .. .. 490 mph IAS
10,000 feet .. .. .. 540 mph IAS


However, there is quite considerable position error associated with the airspeed indicator:



From 120-160 mph add 2 mph
From 160-200 mph subtract 2 mph
From 200-240 mph subtract 6 mph
From 240-280 mph subtract 10 mph
From 280-320 mph subtract 14 mph
From 320-360 mph subtract 18 mph
From 360-400 mph subtract 22 mph


(The Tempest II has a much lower position error, and a dive limit of 480 mph IAS below 12,000 feet).

The Tempest was the better energy fighter, but the Spitfire had better turn performance, better climb performance and a higher rate of roll below 300 mph.

The Spitfire was undeniably superior at high altitude.

In the context of air combat, the Spitfire is a much better dogfighter than the Tempest, and almost as good an energy fighter; it's much better at high altitude and almost as good on the deck.

This combination of attributes makes it in my view a more useful air superiority fighter than the Tempest; if I had to pick a single late war operational fighter for air combat, I'd pick the Spitfire XIV all day long.

If I were allowed to pick a second I would select the Tempest V for low level work.

BTW, the highest Mach number attained by the Tempest was M=0.87 attained by Eric Brown on the 5th of September 1944

p1ngu666
11-06-2005, 10:38 PM
cool info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
11-07-2005, 01:00 AM
In the absence of a flyable Typhoon, I suspect that the Tempest will be used to great effect as a ground attack aircraft. AFAIK, it's getting rockets

Ahistorical, but a good substitute for the Typhoon, yes.

Beaufort-RAF
11-07-2005, 01:22 AM
In the absence of a flyable Typhoon, I suspect that the Tempest will be used to great effect as a ground attack aircraft. AFAIK, it's getting rockets

Thats why I'm looking forward to the Tempest, to use as a substitute Typhoon.

Nubarus
11-07-2005, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by kubanloewe:
Typhon with 4 Hispanos looks more dangerous than any Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

What do you think the Tempest has, .303 machine guns? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Viper2005_
11-07-2005, 04:43 AM
Typhoon Ia had 12 .303s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'm pretty certain that all Tempests had 4 cannon...

WOLFMondo
11-07-2005, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

I completely agree w/ the addition of the tempest before another spit variant. I can easily imagine myself flying the tempest even if 9lb boost model was given to us. The tempest just looks serious w/ those 4xhispanos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The boost on the AI model is 'TP11' now so I assume the boost is now corrected but according to harballs aircraft view its still over 100kph too slow or more at both heights given and its roll rate is on par with a TB3, even at high speeds, contrary to every pilot account i've ever read or interview I've watched, or indeed actual video's of Tempests rolling.

I'm hoping that this Ai aircraft is nothing like the finished article. I'm working on collecting some info on the FW190 and Tempest from British museums some point soon, stuff like test data, one thing I will look for is specific Tempest V series II w/ Sabre IIB data. Most data available is of the Series I with a Sabre IIA at 9lbs.

p1ngu666
11-07-2005, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Typhoon Ia had 12 .303s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'm pretty certain that all Tempests had 4 cannon...

sure, but they look more scary on the typhoon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WOLFMondo
11-07-2005, 07:01 AM
They look kind of daft on a typhoon cause its wings are so fat. They look like little pin ******.

p1ngu666
11-07-2005, 07:10 AM
mondo, u is simply wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
11-07-2005, 01:07 PM
12 .303's in a 5 inch thick wing looks silly:P

MEGILE
11-07-2005, 01:31 PM
tempest ownz tiffie. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Viper2005_
11-07-2005, 01:50 PM
Spitfire XIV owns them all, and happens to also be the subject of this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
11-07-2005, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
12 .303's in a 5 inch thick wing looks silly:P

hehe

Vipez-
11-08-2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:


(The Tempest II has a much lower position error, and a dive limit of 480 mph IAS below 12,000 feet).

The Tempest was the better energy fighter, but the Spitfire had better turn performance, better climb performance and a higher rate of roll below 300 mph.

The Spitfire was undeniably superior at high altitude.

In the context of air combat, the Spitfire is a much better dogfighter than the Tempest, and almost as good an energy fighter; it's much better at high altitude and almost as good on the deck.

This combination of attributes makes it in my view a more useful air superiority fighter than the Tempest; if I had to pick a single late war operational fighter for air combat, I'd pick the Spitfire XIV all day long.

If I were allowed to pick a second I would select the Tempest V for low level work.

BTW, the highest Mach number attained by the Tempest was M=0.87 attained by Eric Brown on the 5th of September 1944


WEll it's all matter of subjectivity.. it's like comparing Spit mk9 and FW190A5, Sure Spit is faster above 5500 m, but it really does not make a difference, since Spit 9 simply can't catch the FW190 at it's own game on sealevel.. neither can Spit14 catch Tempest below 4000 m (imho 60kmh speed advantage for Tempest V is rather big http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Viper2005_
11-08-2005, 11:20 AM
True

But subjectively the Spitfire XIV looks better and performs better in my view.

tomtheyak
11-08-2005, 11:53 AM
Personally, I want them BOTH. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

GREED, GREED, GREED! WONDERFUL GREED!

Buzzsaw-
11-08-2005, 12:20 PM
Spitfire XIV owns them all...

I think you may be surprised if both the Tempest and Spit XIV are completed.

At low and medium altitude, the RAF rated the Tempest superior to the Spit XIV.

The Tempest will be like a P-51D with 4 cannons, a much better climb rate, much higher speed at low and medium altitudes, much better acceleration, a faster dive acceleration, a better zoom climb, and similar roll and maneuverability at higher speeds, WITHOUT the weak wings. It had laminar flow wings, which meant it had low drag characteristics at high speed, and maintained speed very well. Combine that with the fact that it easily achieves very high speeds, (394 mph, 630 kph at sea level) and accelerates very well, you will understand that it will be quite easy to maintain a high speed while maneuvering.

The following is an excerpt from the AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT trials:

>>>>>>>

24A. The best heights of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:-

The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft. From 10,000 - 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at about 300 I.A.S. Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high crusing speed and no comparisons can be made with the Spitfire XIV which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.
These comparisons remain the same with the full fuel loads at present available (2 x 45 gall. long range tank Tempest, 1 x 90 gall. longe range tank Spitfire).

Maximum Speed
25. From 0 - 10,000 feet the Tempest V is 20 mph. faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is then little to choose until 22,000 feet, when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph. faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 feet as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 feet.

Maximum Climb
26. The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed thoughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached then, of course, the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch up and pull ahead.

Dive
27. The Tempest V gains on the Spitfire XIV.

Turning Circle
28. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest.

Rate of Roll
29. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph., but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph.

Conclusions
30. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling techique in combat. For this reason Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIVs, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would never be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is the better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV the better above that height.

<<<<<<<

The speed differences in this comparison were with the Tempest at only +9 boost. At +11 boost, the Tempest would have even more of an advantage. And the advantages in climbrate noted for the Spit XIV were also diminished when the Tempest was at +11.

If the Tempest is modelled as flyable, and modelled correctly, it will be a handful for any other aircraft to deal with.

And its higher altitude speed is only slow when compared to the Spitfire XIV. The Spit XIV did either 446 mph or 448 mph depending on the test, the Tempest did 435 mph.

luftluuver
11-08-2005, 12:28 PM
What boost was the Spit XIV using?

Viper2005_
11-08-2005, 12:39 PM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempestafdu.html

The Tempest is a better low altitude fighter; but the Spitfire is good enough down low, and excellent at high altitude; it's a good enough energy fighter and an excellent turn fighter.

So you could start a fight with energy tactics up high, and if you got yourself into trouble, still hold your own in a turn fight on the deck, giving your buddies time to come and help you out. That's a really useful "get you home" capability.

It's the combination of its performance attributes which makes the Spitfire XIV my RAF fighter of choice, despite the fact that it's not the best performer in any one area.

Except for looks. When it comes to looks, the Spitfire XIV is almost unbeatable! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

p1ngu666
11-08-2005, 01:30 PM
much like 109 vs 190... really

lrrp22
11-08-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
What boost was the Spit XIV using?

+18 lbs

+11 lbs boost Tempest should be compared to +21 lbs boost Spit XIV.

.

VW-IceFire
11-08-2005, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

I completely agree w/ the addition of the tempest before another spit variant. I can easily imagine myself flying the tempest even if 9lb boost model was given to us. The tempest just looks serious w/ those 4xhispanos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The boost on the AI model is 'TP11' now so I assume the boost is now corrected but according to harballs aircraft view its still over 100kph too slow or more at both heights given and its roll rate is on par with a TB3, even at high speeds, contrary to every pilot account i've ever read or interview I've watched, or indeed actual video's of Tempests rolling.

I'm hoping that this Ai aircraft is nothing like the finished article. I'm working on collecting some info on the FW190 and Tempest from British museums some point soon, stuff like test data, one thing I will look for is specific Tempest V series II w/ Sabre IIB data. Most data available is of the Series I with a Sabre IIA at 9lbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep...its a very strange speed too...

Not even the Sabre IIA +9lbs versions would be going that slow at sea level.

The following issues exist with the current AI model:

1) Wrong 20mm cannons (they are Hispano Mark II's and not Mark V's)
2) Wrong ammo loadout, minimum should be 150rpg and maximum should be 200rpg (currently 130rpg)
3) Almost 100kph too slow at Sea Level

luftluuver
11-08-2005, 08:21 PM
Tempest performance data

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

goshikisen
11-08-2005, 09:08 PM
In an effort to redirect attention back towards the Supermarine product...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/xiv-seac.jpg

OldMan____
11-09-2005, 03:24 AM
People, just stop withthat FW190A4 in game is underrated. Itmay show an under rated ATA but its perfroamnce is of a full 1.42. Or do you hae ANY data showing it could go faster than 556 kph in sea level?


Also stop with that classical laminar flow bull#!@#@! Laminar flow is not somethign that is a property of an object. It is an aerodynamic flow state that EVERY object is subject to! Even a brick has laminar flow. Different shapes and surface textures have different limit speeds forlaminar flow (above that speed drag ceases to be linear with speed and becomes quadratic).

Every piece of data I find, points that the "special laminar flow wings" were mere few % higher limit speed. (single digit on most data I have seen!!)

stathem
11-09-2005, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

I completely agree w/ the addition of the tempest before another spit variant. I can easily imagine myself flying the tempest even if 9lb boost model was given to us. The tempest just looks serious w/ those 4xhispanos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The boost on the AI model is 'TP11' now so I assume the boost is now corrected but according to harballs aircraft view its still over 100kph too slow or more at both heights given and its roll rate is on par with a TB3, even at high speeds, contrary to every pilot account i've ever read or interview I've watched, or indeed actual video's of Tempests rolling.

I'm hoping that this Ai aircraft is nothing like the finished article. I'm working on collecting some info on the FW190 and Tempest from British museums some point soon, stuff like test data, one thing I will look for is specific Tempest V series II w/ Sabre IIB data. Most data available is of the Series I with a Sabre IIA at 9lbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep...its a very strange speed too...

Not even the Sabre IIA +9lbs versions would be going that slow at sea level.

The following issues exist with the current AI model:

1) Wrong 20mm cannons (they are Hispano Mark II's and not Mark V's)
2) Wrong ammo loadout, minimum should be 150rpg and maximum should be 200rpg (currently 130rpg)
3) Almost 100kph too slow at Sea Level </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It also overheats like a Yak-1 in the desert at WEP power

lbhskier37
11-09-2005, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
People, just stop withthat FW190A4 in game is underrated. Itmay show an under rated ATA but its perfroamnce is of a full 1.42. Or do you hae ANY data showing it could go faster than 556 kph in sea level?


Also stop with that classical laminar flow bull#!@#@! Laminar flow is not somethign that is a property of an object. It is an aerodynamic flow state that EVERY object is subject to! Even a brick has laminar flow. Different shapes and surface textures have different limit speeds forlaminar flow (above that speed drag ceases to be linear with speed and becomes quadratic).

Every piece of data I find, points that the "special laminar flow wings" were mere few % higher limit speed. (single digit on most data I have seen!!)

#1 the A4 does hit its rated speeds, but only using manual pitch it should with auto pitch like the rest of the 190s.

#2 a laminar flow wing is a name for a certain type of airfoil. Its obvious that the flow doesn;t stay laminar across the whole wing, but that type of airfoil does better at high speeds because it keeps the flow laminar for a longer time.

Aaron_GT
11-09-2005, 03:18 PM
view its still over 100kph too slow or more at both heights given and its roll rate is on par with a TB3, even at high speeds, contrary to every pilot account i've ever read or interview I've watched, or indeed actual video's of Tempests rolling.

The roll rate should be more like that of a P51!

Viper2005_
11-09-2005, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
In an effort to redirect attention back towards the Supermarine product...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/xiv-seac.jpg

Looking Good! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Let's stay on topic guys!

Ratsack
11-09-2005, 04:42 PM
For myself, I€d like to see the MkXIV and the Tempest, and I€ve voted to that effect already. It€ll be great to fly these superb late war beasts.

On the other hand, we should have open eyes about what this will cause. If the amount of whining and b1tching I€ve heard from blue players €" online €" about the Spitfire IX is any indication, the MkXIV will cause a melt down.

€¦either that, or it will be porked to pacify the blubbering masses.

Ratsack

PS €" for the record, when online, I join the team that needs the numbers, and if they€re even, I fly blue. FW190s, or Bf109s WITHOUT the Mk108 elephant gun.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Viper2005_
11-09-2005, 08:24 PM
For the record I log most of my hours in Warclouds, flying the Fw-190A9... No 108s for me either. I do better with the 151/20s.

Sometimes I fly the D9, and sometimes I fly the A6.

But I'm basically a 190 man.

Bring on the Spitfire XIV!

lbhskier37
11-10-2005, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
For myself, I€d like to see the MkXIV and the Tempest, and I€ve voted to that effect already. It€ll be great to fly these superb late war beasts.

On the other hand, we should have open eyes about what this will cause. If the amount of whining and b1tching I€ve heard from blue players €" online €" about the Spitfire IX is any indication, the MkXIV will cause a melt down.

€¦either that, or it will be porked to pacify the blubbering masses.

Ratsack

PS €" for the record, when online, I join the team that needs the numbers, and if they€re even, I fly blue. FW190s, or Bf109s WITHOUT the Mk108 elephant gun.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Never heard any blubbering masses whining about the 190, hmmm, never. Or the mg151, or wait, the P51, oh no, no blubber masses ever whined about the P38, or the P47. Again, mkXIV would be great, but the longer you guys lobby for the plane that probably never will happen and leave the plane that has a chance out like it has no support (25lb boost IX), the less chance you guys have of your precious latewar spit. Y dont you lobby for the plane that has a chance? XIV would be cool, but remember it has an external that was done the same time the F86 internal was done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (for all you bright fellas that means never been done)

Viper2005_
11-10-2005, 03:07 AM
The more we lobby the greater the chance we stand of getting it.

You can never hope to get that for which you do not ask.

If nothing else, when this is all over, we can at least say that we tried to get the XIV included.

VW-IceFire
11-10-2005, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
For myself, I€d like to see the MkXIV and the Tempest, and I€ve voted to that effect already. It€ll be great to fly these superb late war beasts.

On the other hand, we should have open eyes about what this will cause. If the amount of whining and b1tching I€ve heard from blue players €" online €" about the Spitfire IX is any indication, the MkXIV will cause a melt down.

€¦either that, or it will be porked to pacify the blubbering masses.

Ratsack

PS €" for the record, when online, I join the team that needs the numbers, and if they€re even, I fly blue. FW190s, or Bf109s WITHOUT the Mk108 elephant gun.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Never heard any blubbering masses whining about the 190, hmmm, never. Or the mg151, or wait, the P51, oh no, no blubber masses ever whined about the P38, or the P47. Again, mkXIV would be great, but the longer you guys lobby for the plane that probably never will happen and leave the plane that has a chance out like it has no support (25lb boost IX), the less chance you guys have of your precious latewar spit. Y dont you lobby for the plane that has a chance? XIV would be cool, but remember it has an external that was done the same time the F86 internal was done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (for all you bright fellas that means never been done) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
External was done (to my knowledge). The internal was a problem.

goshikisen
11-10-2005, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
XIV would be cool, but remember it has an external that was done the same time the F86 internal was done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (for all you bright fellas that means never been done)
External was done (to my knowledge). The internal was a problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The screenshots I've been posting in this thread are of Nyme's external model. (ibhskier... there's a screenshot of an external model 3 posts above the one in which you claim no external exists!?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) Now if only we could get Oleg to acknowledge it.

Daiichidoku
11-10-2005, 05:57 PM
die, thread, die! die like a spit taking off in a strong crosswind with coarse pitch and a one-armed pilot and low tire pressure


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

lbhskier37
11-10-2005, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
XIV would be cool, but remember it has an external that was done the same time the F86 internal was done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (for all you bright fellas that means never been done)
External was done (to my knowledge). The internal was a problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The screenshots I've been posting in this thread are of Nyme's external model. (ibhskier... there's a screenshot of an external model 3 posts above the one in which you claim no external exists!?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) Now if only we could get Oleg to acknowledge it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, mistyped I meant internal being done. 1 lod of an external model for an aircraft is about 10% of the modeling work. So 10% of the modeling work is done for the XIV, now why should that put it in line ahead of a plane that has had 100% of it modeling work done for over a year now? Put in the IXs with differnt boosts and call it good so no more time is taken away from our long neglected twin engine aircraft.

p1ngu666
11-11-2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
die, thread, die! die like a spit taking off in a strong crosswind with coarse pitch and a one-armed pilot and low tire pressure


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

he be ok if hes flown yaks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Viper2005_
11-11-2005, 09:45 AM
Daiichidoku Posted Thu November 10 2005 16:57
die, thread, die! die like a spit taking off in a strong crosswind with coarse pitch and a one-armed pilot and low tire pressure

In the civilised world we call them "tyres" old boy...

ANGELOFMONS1
11-11-2005, 12:19 PM
No thanks. There are enough sportster aircraft in this game already. I'd settle for a flyable Morane 406, Fokker DXXI or Polikarpov I-15.

carguy_
11-11-2005, 12:52 PM
**** the Spit,give me the Tempest!It makes allied whiners actually think in order to down something at least.

A very merry "I`ll show you" yankee doodle thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Viper2005_
11-11-2005, 01:33 PM
**** the Spit,give me the Tempest!It makes allied whiners actually think in order to down something at least.

Yet another "The Spitfire is too good for me" post...

In my experience, good Spitfire pilots are deadly; bad Spitfire pilots are dead.

The Mk XIV would not change this fact. However, it would force the blues to be more careful, especially the Fw-190 drivers like myself who are used to being able to walk away from the Spitfire at low level.

This would make life interesting. I would like the Spitfire XIV to make it into the sim at least partly because I'd like the challenge of flying against it.

The Tempest will also be fun when/if it arrives, as will the Mosquito.

But if I knock down a good pilot in a Spitfire XIV I'll know that I've really achieved something special in my trusty 190.

And apart from anything else, the Spitfire XIV is just so beautiful... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

JadehawkII
11-11-2005, 07:53 PM
I want the XIV as well. TO me, it's the hallmark of the design and well my opinion is it's a crime to not have it in the game. But who knows, maybe it's gonna show up in a later version of BoB. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chadburn
11-11-2005, 10:36 PM
I'm curious. What would the time limit on the 25lb boost Spit XIV be anyway? Currently, the Merlin 50, 61, 66 and 70 suffer no overheat issues flying 18lb boost at 3000 rpm as continuous max.

stathem
11-12-2005, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
I'm curious. What would the time limit on the 25lb boost Spit XIV be anyway? Currently, the Merlin 50, 61, 66 and 70 suffer no overheat issues flying 18lb boost at 3000 rpm as continuous max.

Ehh? Have you actuallly flown one recently? At all speeds and heights?

In any case a +25lb XIV would be grrreat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

luftluuver
11-12-2005, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
I'm curious. What would the time limit on the 25lb boost Spit XIV be anyway? Currently, the Merlin 50, 61, 66 and 70 suffer no overheat issues flying 18lb boost at 3000 rpm as continuous max.

Til the coolant temperature and/or the oil temperature limits were reached. The 5 min limit one sees is only a suggested limit.

VW-IceFire
11-12-2005, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
I'm curious. What would the time limit on the 25lb boost Spit XIV be anyway? Currently, the Merlin 50, 61, 66 and 70 suffer no overheat issues flying 18lb boost at 3000 rpm as continuous max.

Til the coolant temperature and/or the oil temperature limits were reached. The 5 min limit one sees is only a suggested limit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I remember, the RAF suggested limits were 5 minutes without the need to overhaul the engine...

Is that right?

Anything past that and an engine overhaul was needed afterwards.

luftluuver
11-12-2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire
As I remember, the RAF suggested limits were 5 minutes without the need to overhaul the engine...

Is that right?

Anything past that and an engine overhaul was needed afterwards.

Yup, that is why there was so many Spitfires sitting around with no engines. The engines had been pulled for overhaul.

p1ngu666
11-12-2005, 09:49 AM
not like u cant do the same with alot of other planes...

Chadburn
11-12-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
not like u cant do the same with alot of other planes...

I can't get the MKIXe HF to overheat at boost, regardless of alt. Is there another inline that can match it's performance?

The Sakae 21 in the A6M5c comes to mind. It will run indefinitely with rad open on full boost and not even get the overheat warning, but it's a radial.

As for the other Merlins I mentioned, I find if they start to overheat, a gentle climb will cool the engine down. If it overheats again, a gentle dive. You can go all day and never worry about damaging it. Even if you do overheat it, it will never completely seizes.

The only Merlin I've managed to kill testing overheat was the 45. Even with rad open full it seized up completely.

stathem
11-12-2005, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
not like u cant do the same with alot of other planes...

I can't get the MKIXe HF to overheat at boost, regardless of alt. Is there another inline that can match it's performance?

The Sakae 21 in the A6M5c comes to mind. It will run indefinitely with rad open on full boost and not even get the overheat warning, but it's a radial.

As for the other Merlins I mentioned, I find if they start to overheat, a gentle climb will cool the engine down. If it overheats again, a gentle dive. You can go all day and never worry about damaging it. Even if you do overheat it, it will never completely seizes.

The only Merlin I've managed to kill testing overheat was the 45. Even with rad open full it seized up completely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you any evidence or indication that the Merlin installation in Spitfire was prone to overheating, or damage thereof?

p1ngu666
11-13-2005, 07:31 AM
the LF's overheat easily past a certain height, 6000-7000metres i think :\

Chadburn
11-13-2005, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the LF's overheat easily past a certain height, 6000-7000metres i think :\

Not when I've tested them above 7,000m. The overheat warning comes on, but it can safely be ignored.

Anyway, my question is whether the 25lb boost Griffon will behave similar to the Merlin, or was there a specific time limit at 25lbs?

luftluuver
11-13-2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
Anyway, my question is whether the 25lb boost Griffon will behave similar to the Merlin, or was there a specific time limit at 25lbs?

Griffons were not cleared for 25lb boost, only to 21lb boost.

Chadburn
11-13-2005, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Have you any evidence or indication that the Merlin installation in Spitfire was prone to overheating, or damage thereof?

I think you misunderstand. The question is regarding what the time limits of the 25lb boost would be as compared to the performance of the Merlin at 18lbs.

RAF documents often mention a limit of 5 minutes at 3,000rpm and 18lbs for the Merlin, but this was obviously conservative. Was it the same or different for the Griffon?

For example, here is a test of a Merlin 66 at 25lb boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html

Note that the climb tests were done with the radiator shutters closed and there were no overheat issues under English weather conditions.

Chadburn
11-13-2005, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
Anyway, my question is whether the 25lb boost Griffon will behave similar to the Merlin, or was there a specific time limit at 25lbs?

Griffons were not cleared for 25lb boost, only to 21lb boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So luft, we'd be getting a Merlin at 25?

kubanloewe
11-13-2005, 10:04 AM
Have you any evidence or indication that the Merlin installation in Spitfire was prone to overheating, or damage thereof?


no but why the installation of any Daimler or Junkers did it have ? even at high altitudes with -30?C outside or at russian wintermaps with ca. -35?C on the ground http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
onother point is that most german Planes in the Game didn´t have much Power below 100% but the Spit, P51 and some others flies powerfull with 90 or 80%.

MEGILE
11-13-2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:


So luft, we'd be getting a Merlin at 25?

Yes, it would be a Merlin 66 @ +25 BOOST for the Spit IXe and a Griffon 65 @ +18 BOOST then later +21 BOOST for the XIV.

The Griffon was limited to 5 minutes at +18 BOOST also IIRC, like the Merlin.

p1ngu666
11-14-2005, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by kubanloewe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you any evidence or indication that the Merlin installation in Spitfire was prone to overheating, or damage thereof?


no but why the installation of any Daimler or Junkers did it have ? even at high altitudes with -30?C outside or at russian wintermaps with ca. -35?C on the ground http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
onother point is that most german Planes in the Game didn´t have much Power below 100% but the Spit, P51 and some others flies powerfull with 90 or 80%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the late 109s get a big boost from injecting alchol into the engine. the 190 uses tons of fuel for anti detanation.

the griffon wasnt cleared for 25lb boost, tho a few planes *may* have used it for v1 hunting.
it would be a rocket thats for sure...

and kuban, try a p47 then a yak at high alt. yak has no power, but overheats quicker than a p47 which has lots of power http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Chadburn
11-14-2005, 10:35 AM
Thanks Megile, Pengu.

Kuban, why do any planes in the sim overheat in those situations, not just the 109 and 190? And the BMW and Jumo are two of the best engines in the game regarding ability to heat up slowly and cool down quickly.

Viper2005_
11-14-2005, 11:16 AM
P47D never overheats!

I just flew one around crimea at 7500 m +, 110% power, radiator closed.

It'd just sit there at 680-700 km/h TAS all day (extra ammunition, 100% fuel).

I then cruise climbed to 10 km and continued at a mere 660 km/h TAS.

No overheat.

Then the water ran out.

I only noticed because the light went out. I just left it at 110% and kept going.

No overheat.

Eventually I got bored!

MEGILE
11-14-2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:


the griffon wasnt cleared for 25lb boost, tho a few planes *may* have used it for v1 hunting.
it would be a rocket thats for sure...



Sure about that? I remember LRRP saying they tested 25 lbs at boscome down and had serious troubles with the bearings.
But yes, it would be a rocket according to RAE's perdictions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
11-14-2005, 12:14 PM
im sure someone said in a book that a few used 25lb boost. ofcourse if they actully did or not is another matter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
11-14-2005, 01:42 PM
Overheat issues have been raised since the La5FN overheat times in IL-2 1.0. The Spit IX has alway been wierd with really slow overheat at low altitude and really fast overheat at high altitude. The R-2800 in the P-47 is super slow to overheat, the R-2800 in the F4U is really fast to overheat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Oh, and yes I'm still voting to include the Spit XIV and Spit IX +25 in the sim.</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
11-14-2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Oh, and yes I'm still voting to include the Spit XIV and Spit IX +25 in the sim.</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Viper2005_
11-14-2005, 01:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

snafu73
11-14-2005, 06:12 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I unanimously agree, but will keel over with shock if we get them.

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Daiichidoku Posted Thu November 10 2005 16:57
die, thread, die! die like a spit taking off in a strong crosswind with coarse pitch and a one-armed pilot and low tire pressure

In the civilised world we call them "tyres" old boy... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

here in barbaria its "tires"

and boots are what you put on your feet, and bonnets are what ladies used to wear on thier heads

mind you, i dont live in outer barbaria, where they use "U"s instead of "ough"'s, "or"s for "our"s and overcome thier "hard C" handicap by using "K"s

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Viper2005_
11-16-2005, 11:39 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Vipez-
11-16-2005, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by stathem:

Have you any evidence or indication that the Merlin installation in Spitfire was prone to overheating, or damage thereof?

Have you any evidence or indication that the Merlin installation in Spitfire 9 did not overheat at any level using Continous WEP for unlimited time without damage thereof ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyway, Spit9 and Spit5 behaviour is very strange, I can't get spit 9 to overheat, when i fly in Dogfight servers i allways have my Web on.. SpitV on the other hand boils all the time regardles of altitude.. Think we need something like balance between spit V (overheats all the time esspecially over 5km) and spit 9 ..

Monty_Thrud
11-16-2005, 06:46 PM
*YAWN*...same old pirrocks at it again, the Fuhrer would be proud of your dedication

Viper2005_
11-16-2005, 07:29 PM
The correct balance would be to have severe overheating issues on the ground for the Spitfire (and Bf-109), some issues in the climb (though this is debatable, as climb performance tests were performed with the radiator shutters locked in the closed position without ill effect), and no issues whatever at flying speed in the ETO.

Overheating of liquid cooled engines is almost inexcusable as it implies that the engineers simply haven't done their sums correctly.

Air cooled engines should have much more severe trouble, especially with "developed" engines running at higher powers.

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 03:18 AM
true viper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Herustic_Algor
11-17-2005, 04:41 AM
Spitfire Mk. XVI bubble canopy version please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/2004/09/grfx/CF-18_and_Spit.jpg

MEGILE
11-17-2005, 05:53 AM
Nice photo...
notice the F-18 has to use flaps to cruise with the Spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 09:30 AM
or perhaps the camera plane is very slow? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Herustic_Algor
11-17-2005, 10:25 AM
Camera plane was a B-25 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Mike Potter's Spit MK. XVI in RCAF 421 Sqdn. markings based in Ottawa, Canada

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/Crop-Duster/WebshotsCommunity-SpitfireSL721andC.jpg

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 08:18 PM
for a b25, probably lookin at around 200mph i guess