PDA

View Full Version : Spitfires; a general question



96th_Nightshifter
10-03-2005, 02:39 AM
Hi all,

Just a general topic on the Spitfire, I like to fly it but find that I really don't know the big differences between some of the models. Could any resident Spitfire enthusiasts make a little list of the in game Spitfires and give details on armament, top speed (in game), strengths/weaknesses and any other variations that are relevant.
Please I don't want this to be a flame topic about the Spitfire or anything, it's just a general question for the people that like and know about the in-game Spitfires.

Thanks in advance for the information.

Cajun76
10-03-2005, 03:17 AM
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/BARC/spitfire.html

ImpStarDuece
10-03-2005, 03:20 AM
Try this site Spitfireperformance.com (http://www.spitfireperformance.com)


It has detailed data on the Mk I, II, V, VIII, IX, XIV, 21 and Seafire from original RAF documants.

It is a little in depth so I will try to summarise the performance here. problem is that I could be typing for a week.

Essentially we have 3 major Spitfire marks.

The Spitfire V with a Merlin 45

The Spitfire IX with a Merlin 66

The Spitfire VIII with a Merlin 66

The Spitfire first V appeared in Feburary 1941. It uses a single stage supercharger on the Merlin 45. Best altitude is around 20,000 feet where it tops out at approximately 370 mph.

The Spitfire L.F. is a Spitfire with a cropped supercharger impeller. It is a dedicated low level fighter. Top speed is about 355 mph at 6000 feet. It loses out to contemporary opposition above around 10,000 feet.

The Spitfire VC is a tropicalised Mk V with a wacking great airfilter on the front which takes about 10% off toatl performance in speed and climb.

The Spitfire IX and VIII are fitted with a Merlin 66 with a two stage two speed supercharger, which delivers better performance at high altitude than the Merlin 45 of the Mk V. The Merlin 66 is strangely enough a low altitude development of the Merlin 61, which first appeared on the Spitfire Mk IX around June 1942. The Merlin 66 wasn't fitted to operational Mk IXs until early 1943.

A Spitfire IX with a Merlin 66 should top out at about 405-410 mph at 22,000 feet. It will do about 330-340 at sealevel. Performance figures for the Mk VIII should be similar.

The Mk VIII is slightly more solidly built and refined airframe than the IX and is generally regarded as having the sweetest comination of performance and handling of all Merlin engined Spitfires. It should dive a little better and roll bellter at high speed but a little worse at lower speeds. It generally feels a little heavier than a Mk IX.

The HF IX is a special high altitude variant of the Spitfire IX, outfitted with a Merlin 71. From memory it does about 416-420 at around 28,000 feet and is generally 10-15 mph faster than a Marlin 66 engined mark above about 15,000 feet. It has very similar handeling to the MK IX, but pull through turns better at high altitude.

You have probably noticed that Spitfires come with various armament settings. These correspond to the wing type. There are 3 types of wing B, C and E.

TYPE B. Fitted to Spitfire Vb.
2 Hispano 20mms with 60 rpg
4 Browning .303 with 350 rpg.

TYPE C Fitted to Spitfire Vc
4 Hispano 20mms with 120 rpg

OR

2 hispano 20mms with 120 rpg

TYPE E
2 Hispano 20mm with 140 rpg
2 Browning .50 with 250 rpg.

Spitfires with clipped wings are generally 5 mph faster below 10,000 feet than those with full span wings. They should also accelerate faster straight and level and in a dive. Their rate of roll is increased by roughly 45-50 degrees a second. They are a little less steady in prolonged turns and more stall prone, but retain energy better through a turn. Clipped wing LF MK Vs had among the highest roll rates of all WW2 fighters below about 350 mph, being tipped out by the FW 190 and the Mustang and P-38 above this.

I hope I haven't confused you too much. Each makr of Spitfire had hundreds of modificatiosn to it in terms of engine, airframe, cockpit, wing type, armament ect. Its a fascinating plane.

p1ngu666
10-03-2005, 03:31 AM
great post imp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

my favourite one ingame is the VIII, the looks, speed and handling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

jds1978
10-03-2005, 03:42 AM
in the mk VIII at what altitude should u change supercharger speed?

ImpStarDuece
10-03-2005, 03:43 AM
All Merlins have automatic superchargers IIRC, so you shouldn't have to worry about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
10-03-2005, 04:04 AM
indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
u can run the IX/VIII in cps mode by hitting alt-0 or shift 0 i cant remmber :\

MEGILE
10-03-2005, 04:07 AM
I do believe Spit IXs running on +25 boost had to change supercharger speed manually. Hopefully, we will have that problem in the near future. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
10-03-2005, 04:14 AM
I have never heard this before Meglie. Do you have any more sources?

96th_Nightshifter
10-03-2005, 05:48 AM
Thanks for the replies, thats exactly what i was looking for.
Great information - thanks!

Kurfurst__
10-03-2005, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
I do believe Spit IXs running on +25 boost had to change supercharger speed manually. Hopefully, we will have that problem in the near future. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nope, AFAIK just the barometric capsule was adjusted so that the 2nd stage would kick in earlier, to provide the extra pressure required with higher boost.

Gear change would only appear with the Mk IX series and up, the previous ones didnt have it - they all had single stage, single speed superchargers, no gear change if there is one gear only! ,)

IMP summerized it very nicely btw.

Basically :

Mk Vb : early version with poorer altitude performance
VC : as above, just with new wings and 120 cannon rounds instead of 60
LFV : variant tuned for low altitude, good performance low, very poor high up.

IX : with two staged supercharged Merlin, mid-late war variant, with good performance at altitude and down low

VIII : redesigned one, basically more fuel and range, but heavier than the IXs.

ImpStarDuece
10-03-2005, 06:16 AM
An empty Mk VIII was actually a shade lighter than an empty Mk IX. The redesigned VC airframe was stronger and marginally lighter than the previous Spifire airframe, mostly due to refinements in the wing framing and attachment.

The data sheet for the Mk VIII gives 5,790 lbs empty weight. The Mk XI has a empty weight of between 5,800 and 6,200 lbs, depending on configuration (wing tanks, rear fuselage tanks, bubble canopy, revised tail, engine type) and period in the war.

The normal loaded weight of the Spitfire VIII was around 8,000lbs. Normal loaded weight for the Mk IX was about 7,500 lbs, but the max overload was around 9,500 lbs, usually used on +25lbs 'Basta' airframes for low-level fighter bomber missions.

MEGILE
10-03-2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I have never heard this before Meglie. Do you have any more sources?

I must be confused http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

JtD
10-03-2005, 06:38 AM
The Vc we have does not lose any speed compared to a Vb. So basically it's the better choice of the two because it has either better weapons or more ammo.

Other than that: What Imp says.

Don't use the HF model unless you expect combat above 4000 meters only.

If you can pick the LF models over standard ones, which simply are too slow to be competetive in 42.

Against 109's I'd recommend the full wingspan, against 190's the CW.

Spits strenght against 109's is high speed handling, it can also take more punishment. Against G-6 and G-6 late they are faster at about all altitudes and do not overheat as quickly. Spit's lose less E when turning, the higher you go the more it shows. However, Spit vs. 109 is a really close match, the G-2 is equal in dogfights, the G-6 inferior but has the MK 108 option and against late 109's the Spits have a really hard time, mostly because the late 109's are so much better in climb.

Against 190 - make them turn low and slow and you win. If you don't go low, they'll just stay as long as they have an advantage and leave as soon as they don't. The strenght of the Spit are turn and climb, the disadvantages mainly are speed and firepower. Without clipped wings your roll rate esp. at high speed is insufficient to follow evasive action by the 190.

F19_Ob
10-03-2005, 08:55 AM
U should also read in on the 109, your main adversary.
Spitfireperformance.com is a good site but only gives fairly onesided info.
The few German quotes really don't say much, so a lot more is needed to get on top of the 109 performance vs spitfire. IMO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

gx-warspite
10-03-2005, 09:03 AM
ImpStarDeuce, are you sure that the CW models retain E better? That doesn't sound correct to me.

VW-IceFire
10-03-2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
ImpStarDeuce, are you sure that the CW models retain E better? That doesn't sound correct to me.
He probably meant to say that they bleed speed faster than the normal versions.

The Clipped wing gives increased agility and roll rate at low altitudes. It was designed as a stopgap measure to counter the FW190...it worked superbly well and it didn't hurt the turn significantly. It does hurt climb and high altitude performance so you want to keep the clipped versions low.

HellToupee
10-03-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Spits strenght against 109's is high speed handling, it can also take more punishment.

heh strongly dissagree with that part, and i dont meant the 108s.

The g2 is superior in a close in dogfight vs the mk9, tho not the mk5, vs the mk9 tho it can outturn and at lowspeeds has vastly better handling, if a mk9 gets stuck turning with a g2 theres nothing he can do, other than break and try and run, other moves will result in snap stall. The spit tho is much faster and seems to be much superior in vertical manovers. G2s ither stall out following or go into a turn which you can just keep diving and zooming on.

ImpStarDuece
10-03-2005, 03:35 PM
I find that the clipped V versions have slightly less drag at low altitudes that the versions with full sized wings.

I did a heap of testing ages ago, right after the Spitfire V come out in FB. Generally, the clipped wing variants loose slightly less speed in turns and low altitude zoom climbs, but are more dificult to handle 'crisply' at the end of a manoeuvre. They also have a touch more acceleration in a dive, but it is such a small gain that unless you make a direct comparison with a normal version you will hardly notice.

In real life clipped wing Spitfire pilots noted that L.F. versions with the cropped Merlins accelerated much better, picked up speed in a dive quicker, rolled MUCH faster and zoom climbeb better at low altitudes (up to 4800 feet per minute below 5000 feet).

p1ngu666
10-03-2005, 04:16 PM
i think the clipped wing was better at low alt, but worse up high due to the changes in how air moves when it gets thinner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
10-04-2005, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
U should also read in on the 109, your main adversary.
Spitfireperformance.com is a good site but only gives fairly onesided info.
The few German quotes really don't say much, so a lot more is needed to get on top of the 109 performance vs spitfire. IMO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well you should only read the articles of Mike Williams on the Bf 109 if you want to be certain not to miss the most biased and manipulated article on the subject ever in life. Basically it`s just aimed to show the Spitfire was the best plane ever, while the Bf 109 was a complete load of ****. If you read it, you will find it lists Spitfires always at the maximum engine power they were ever cleared, claiming they used it 100% the time (false), and compares them the Bf 109s which are not running at full power, and even those results are cherrypicked from the worst performing examples, carrying gondolas or being beaten up, poorly produced airframes. The final accord is generally selected qoutes from pilots who could appearantly do anything better than the others side (well, the dead ones can`t tell stories now can they?), 'dispelling' old myths like the there was anything the 109 could hope to do better, like commonly accepted facts about dive advantage, or behaviour under negative G.

In short, those articles are the finest example of revisionist ambitions. One sad example is the author used up a qoute of Butch2k, who he called a 'noted authority on the Bf109', which informed about higher boosts used on the 109K (Mr. Williams noted performance on this boost on his curves with a thing, light yellow line on white background, just to be sure it does not gets much attention). Then he changed his mind, and after complains from a real world Bf 109 mechanic why MW only compares worst vs. best figures, he removed the line AND butch2k`s qoute, claiming now the boost was never in service.

You should read this how Mike Williams filtered the evidences to turn the story of something like his liking.

http://kurfurst.bravehost.com/

It`s a recension on one of his first versions, and it wasn`t updated ever since, but these articles only grown worser in manipulating things. Ie. the author is so desperate to give Constant Speed props to all Spitfires in the BoB that he even claims all Spits were fitted with one from the 78th production aircraft, but any good Spitfire book ie. from A Price would tell you the first 78 machine were fitted with fixed blade props, then from 79th onwards they used a variable, two-pitch prop that wasn`t optimal, and from June 1940 they started refitting CS props and some 1000 aircraft were refitted within a month or two...

HellToupee
10-04-2005, 01:14 AM
that page seems pretty biased


The resulting 109G types, equipped with DB 605 ASM, were considerably faster than RAF`s Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX type fighters, still running at +18 lbs/sq.inch boost, especially at higher altitudes


it only allowed to increase to +25 lbs/sq.inch boost below the the relatively low rated altitutude of the Merlin 66 - 16 250 ft

OMG the special high alt 109 is faster than a low fighter version of the spitfire!

Kurfurst__
10-04-2005, 04:07 AM
Most of the RAF fighter squadrons would use the IXLF Spit, and most of the IXLF Squads (ie. about 30 out of 34) would use +18 lbs boost during 1944. Max output was 1690 HP at sl.

At 18 lbs boost, the IXLF did 335 mph at SL, and 404 mph at 19 5000 ft.

Most of the LW units would use 109Gs with MW 50 in 1944, these had two variants, normal altitude with 605AM engine, the high altitude /AS versions with 605ASM engines. Both had 1800 PS at sl, but the latter had higher rated altitude.

Max speed of the AM version was 568 kph at SL, 665 kph at 5000m (353/413mph at 16k ft), the ASM version did 560 at sl/680 at 7500m (348mph/423mph at 24600 ft).

HellToupee
10-04-2005, 05:19 AM
So keen to downplay the use of 25lbs in spitties that puts a mere mk9 spitfire at around the same speed down low as the g10 using mw50. And according to you only 120 XIVs were ever used, so what the other 800 made just sat around and looked pretty back home hell they seemed to have enough to send a whole bunch off to berma. LFs are LFs for a reason that they arnt used for high alt so why mention stupid statements like that. Plus um sure no XIV sat grounded with a fuel shortage.

Spit XIV > all 109s be sure

WOLFMondo
10-04-2005, 05:39 AM
Kurfy, you trying to beat pingu with the biggest sig? :P

Not all those XIV's where used, some where shipped to Burma, many would have been kept in reserve to keep converted squadrons up to strength (the 2nd TAF lost bwtween 2 and upto 17 planes daily due to flak alone)

HellToupee, the 2nd TAF had a real worry about fuel, the wrong fuel. Since planes moved about almost daily to new airfields and often would carry out sorties then land at there new home they have to get logistics units to move the required fuel about all the time. It was actually a major concern getting the right stuff to the right place so units could get in the air as often as required, which was almost every day without fail.

ImpStarDuece
10-04-2005, 05:54 AM
Some Spitfire Mk IX/VII/VIII engine performance figures;

Maximum output for the Merlin 61 was 1,565 hp at 15.5 lbs boost at 25000 feet
Merlin 63 was 1,710 hp at 18.2 lbs boost 26, 000 feet
Merlin 63A was 1,760 hp at 18.2 lbs boost at 28,000 feet
Merlin 66 was 1,720 hp at 18.5 lbs boost at 22,000 feet
Merlin 70 was 1,720 hp at 18.5 lbs boost at 27,500 feet
Merlin 71 was 1,655 hp at 18.5 lbs boost at 29,000 feet
Merlin 77 was 1,680 hp at 18.5 lbs boost at 24,000 feet

Spitfires IX with Merlin 61s generally did between 400 and 408 mph at 26-28,000 feet (1,255 produced in Mk IX, 267 produced in Mk VII).

Spitfires with a Merlin 66 generally did between 400 and 404 mph at 22-25,000 feet. (4,010 produced in Mk IX, 1255 produced in Mk VII)

Spitfires with a Merlin 70 generally did between 412 and 416 mph at 27-29,000 feet (400 produced in Mk IX, 166 produced with Mk VIII)

Spitfire Mk VIIs with a special high altitude Merlin 71s did 400 mph at 20,000 feet, 424 mph at 29,400 feet and 410 mph at 40,000 feet. Only 16 HF Mk VIIIs were produced though, the rest had standard Merlin 61s.

[img=http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/328/merlinoutputchart2an.th.jpg] (http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=merlinoutputchart2an.jpg)

ImpStarDuece
10-04-2005, 06:09 AM
A link to Jadgmailers excellent DB-605 engine family performance charts: DB-605 performance (http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm)

Enjoy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DB-605AS maximum output;

@ sea level; 1,435 hp
@ rated altitude; 1,200 hp at 8,000m (26,500 feet)

DB-605AM maximum output

@ sea level; 1,800 hp
@ rated altitude; 1,700 hp at 4,000m (13,000 feet)

DB-650ASM

@ sea level: 1,800 hp
@ rated altitude; 1,500 hp at 6,400m (21,000 feet)

ploughman
10-04-2005, 06:13 AM
Kurfy's sig is getting a bit alarming. Nurse Ratchett!

nakamura_kenji
10-04-2005, 06:21 AM
and you not scary evil peneguin ^_^

ImpStarDuece
10-04-2005, 06:22 AM
lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

p1ngu666
10-04-2005, 06:32 AM
yeah, i think his sig is actully bigger...

Kurfurst__
10-04-2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
So keen to downplay the use of 25lbs in spitties that puts a mere mk9 spitfire at around the same speed down low as the g10 using mw50.

Well according to Neil Stirling who originally researched this subject, and I merely qouting him. He says that the +25lbs Mk9s were used only during the V-1 raids in 1944, that is, 3 months, 2 squadrons out of 34 total... http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Untitled-Scanned-03a.jpg from 11 July 1944.

In 1945 appearantly lot of IX squadrons of the 2nd TAF were to use +25lbs with 150 grade fuel, but he cant tell how many exactly - up to 30 Squadros iirc. These +25lbs IXs would be a near perfect match for the DB 605AM powered low altitude G-14, but the AS version best them at altitude.



And according to you only 120 XIVs were ever used, so what the other 800 made just sat around and looked pretty back home hell they seemed to have enough to send a whole bunch off to berma.

Only 6 Squadrons equipped with the XIV to see action in Europe, and thats 120 planes. In fact, its max.72 planes, since only 12 plane would fly sorties, the rest were reserves.

The "other" 800 did nothing because they were not yet produced until VE day. Ie. Spit XIV production - taken from another poster who I think qoutes Spitfire: History :

1943 : 18 18
01-44 : 30 12
02-44 : 45 15
03-44 : 50 05
04-44 : 56 06
05-44 : 68 12
06-44 : 101 33
07-44 : 129 28
08-44 : 151 22
09-44 : 185 34
10-44 : 245 60
11-44 : 300 55
12-44 : 341 41
01-45 : 399 58
02-45 : 511 112
03-45 : 648 137
04-45 : 743 95
05-45 : 815 72

Simply not enough aircraft around to equip more than 6 Squadrons, and make up for losses etc.




Spit XIV > all 109s be sure

Maybe yes, maybe not. We will see. I would love to see the XIV in the sim - and in my REVI anyway. Lets hope it makes it.

luftluuver
10-04-2005, 09:18 AM
Says much about what the RAF thought about the LW, to send Spitfire XIVs to the Pacific theatre.

production to 12-44 : <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">341</span>

Where do you get this '"other" 800' from?

ploughman
10-04-2005, 09:35 AM
I think he's talking about total XIV production which, off the top of my head, was 957, plus 300 or so of the similar XVIII.

danjama
10-04-2005, 09:50 AM
Heres an unbiased website i picked up you should all look at:

http://www.spitfires-are-better.co.uk

Enjoy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

danjama = known to give the best input to every thread since april 2005!

Xiolablu3
10-04-2005, 10:39 AM
The problem is tho Kurfurst, that you are SO biased the other way so I'm not sure I can trust your sites and stuff.


I like flying both the Spit and 109 and think they are both excellent planes in FB.

I cant say if they are modelled correctly because I havent flown either, but they result in a great dogfight online. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
10-04-2005, 10:46 AM
Danjama,

I like the new sig! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
10-04-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Danjama,

I like the new sig! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

tis indeed nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

danjama
10-04-2005, 11:28 AM
Well thankyou gents very much, how was the website http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

major_setback
10-04-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
Heres an unbiased website i picked up you should all look at:

http://www.spitfires-are-better.co.uk

Enjoy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



danjama = known to give the best input to every thread since april 2005!

The link does not work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

danjama
10-04-2005, 01:30 PM
Its not a real website lol read the thread then look at the name of the site i posted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif it will make sense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

ploughman
10-04-2005, 01:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by danjama:
Heres an unbiased website i picked up you should all look at:

http://www.spitfires-are-better.co.uk

Enjoy Veryhappy



danjama = known to give the best input to every thread since april 2005!



The link does not work Crying

Irony I'm affraid, which is alot like goldy, only cheaper.

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

Kurfurst__
10-05-2005, 04:45 AM
Ploughman,

That poor creature in your sig is probably the most sick, loathesome, repulsive and distgusting... *thing* I ever saw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
10-05-2005, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Ploughman,

That poor creature in your sig is probably the most sick, loathesome, repulsive and distgusting... *thing* I ever saw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And he's not talking about the demented penguin either.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ploughman
10-05-2005, 06:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Ploughman,

That poor creature in your sig is probably the most sick, loathesome, repulsive and distgusting... *thing* I ever saw.



And he's not talking about the demented penguin either...

You know, I think you might be right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stathem
10-05-2005, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Ploughman,

That poor creature in your sig is probably the most sick, loathesome, repulsive and distgusting... *thing* I ever saw.



And he's not talking about the demented penguin either...

You know, I think you might be right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? No! he means.... the 109 in flames? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Friendly_flyer
10-05-2005, 10:24 AM
I know I'm not going to be popular over this, but the Mk. XIV doesn't give me that warm fuzzy "spitty" feeling inside. It looks all wrong and decidedly "unspitty". I'm almost glad we don't have it in the game (despite Hammerds very nice texture).

tomtheyak
10-05-2005, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I know I'm not going to be popular over this, but the Mk. XIV doesn't give me that warm fuzzy "spitty" feeling inside. It looks all wrong and decidedly "unspitty". I'm almost glad we don't have it in the game (despite Hammerds very nice texture).

Flyer, flyer.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Tell you what, save some money up and come to the UK next July and specifically head for Flying Legends, the classic aircraft airshow at Duxford, Cambridgeshire.

I gauruntee after that show you'll want a mkXIV as badly as I do!

And before u Lufies have a go it's not cos I need an uberplane to shoot down 109s or 190s (MkIXs good enuff for me for that thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) - I just want to fly that 2000hp RR Griffon with the added bonus of havin the gracious curves and lovley handling of the Spit attatched...

aaaaaaaah..... spitfire 14........

p1ngu666
10-05-2005, 03:12 PM
indeed, in the air, it is most certainly a spit, extremely effortless http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif