View Full Version : Spitfire MK VIII or MK IX ?

01-28-2005, 06:08 AM
i was wondering , what is the difference between the to fighters ? which do u prefer best ? performance & etc .

it would be much appreciated if you guys would help me decide http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

01-28-2005, 06:10 AM
I can't tell any difference in performance, so I fly the MK.VIII simply because it looks better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

If the fight is at 30,000FT however, I will take the Spitfire IXeHF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

01-28-2005, 06:41 AM
ok , how about the weapons ? between VIII & IXc & IXe ?

01-28-2005, 06:45 AM
If I remember correctly...

the Spitfire IXc has 4 .303 MGs and 2 20mm Hispanos.
The Spitfire IXe and VIII have 2 .50 MGs and 2 20mm Hispanos.

its personal preference realy.. I find the Hispanos so effective against fighters, that I realy don't mind which machine gun setup I have.. both seem to have the same effectiveness.

01-28-2005, 06:48 AM
but which is better for u ? the 4 .303 or the 50 cal?

01-28-2005, 06:50 AM
I suppose the 4 .303 would be better.. more chance of hitting the target, and giving a BF-109 a fuel leak.
Even though the .303s are probably not going to cause massive structural failiure, the BF-109 will be forced to land. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

For me, the machine guns are a last resort though... I only use them once I have emptied the Hispanos. I don't fire them together, because I don't need to. The 20mm are killers.
On occaision, you can get kills using the machine guns alone.

I don't believe that the machine gun set up, .303 or .50 has any differing effect on how the plane flies though.

01-28-2005, 06:56 AM
The Spit IXc has half the cannon ammo of the IXe, doesn't it? If so, then the IXe would be the better choice. I think the VIII has the same amount of ammo as the IXe.

01-28-2005, 06:57 AM
I thought that the IXe and IXc both had 12 seconds of 20mm ammo?
I think only the Spitfire mkV has half the amount.

01-28-2005, 07:18 AM
VIII had Merlin 61 engine and increased fuel capacity, built from scratch for that engine.

XI was an upgraded V with a bolted on Merlin 61 and no other modification.

Mk VIII beats IX hands down in real life.

01-28-2005, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
I thought that the IXe and IXc both had 12 seconds of 20mm ammo?
I think only the Spitfire mkV has half the amount. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may be wrong, this is just some vague memory. Might be true, though. Easy to test - load up PF, hop in a spit and fire off all the ammo with a stopwatch running.

01-28-2005, 07:24 AM
does the MK VIII has the same weap as the IXc has ? 2 20mm & 4 .303 cal mg's ?

01-28-2005, 07:35 AM
Yes it has 4 .303's and 2 20mm's

Each cannon has 120 rounds

The .303's though are great at setting the fuel tanks of the Fw's alight though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Mk VIII was viewed by many pilots as the deffinative Spit as it had the handeling of the Mk V, but the power and speed of the IX

Me I prefer the VIII as the model is so much nicer, and i think it has the edge in handling

01-28-2005, 07:44 AM

Mark Vb
2x20mm cannons (60 rpg in a ammo drum)
4x.303 machine guns (300 rpg?)

Mark IXc
2x20mm cannons (120 rpg in a belt feed)
4x.303 machine guns (300 rpg?)

Mark IXe
2x20mm cannons (140 rpg in a belt feed)
2x.50cal machine guns (I forget the ammo load, was it 250?)

Mark VIII(c)
2x20mm cannons (120 rpg in a belt feed)
4x.303 machine guns (300 rpg?)

The Mark VIII we have is a C wing...there were some E wing VIIIs as well but we don't have one.

The Mark VIII, despite coming before the IX in order, is the more advanced of the two. The VIII has a retractable tail wheel, strengthened fuselage, I think the ailerons were given a slight modification, but it was otherwise very similar. I take the VIII rather than the IX...it should be faster than the IX by a couple of MPH but I've never tested. Both VIII and IX we have are Merlin 66 installations and both have the universal engine filter that was on the LF IX and VIIIs so there really isn't much to choose from. Nymes VIII model is a hair more accurate than Gibbages IX but I've spoken to them both (not specifically about that) and there is no fault or blame...Nyme had months to work on his stuff, Gibbage pulled it together very quickly and still did a superb job. Kudos for it being even done in the first place!

01-28-2005, 07:48 AM
thanks m8 & to all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

& by the way .... to all of you ....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif LOL !!! MWAHAHAHA joke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Paolo Javier

01-28-2005, 12:40 PM
the Mk8 must have had a slight better design to its wings or weight distribution for it to have handeled better or even as good as a Mk9

the Mk8 was 480-ish pounds heavier is why i say that

01-28-2005, 05:14 PM
I prefer the .50s myself...

01-28-2005, 06:37 PM
The VIII and IX had the same "C" (Universal)wing. The IXc and VIIIc had the same armament, 2 x 20mm (120 rpg)and 4 x 303s.

The IXE had the 2 20mm and 2 .50s. There was no version of the VIII operationally that had the E type armament.

Both types were very close to each other, with the VIII having slightly better range, and a retractable tail wheel. For info on the various subtypes of IXs, best to find a good book.

01-28-2005, 06:52 PM
Just off the top of my head I seem to remember that infact the VII/VIII had shorter ailerons by some 8 1/2".

01-28-2005, 08:43 PM
Personaly I like the VIII over the XI because it just looks better. I am sure the VIII has a speed edge over the IX, but besides that I dont know really any other advantages that the VIII has over the IX.

01-28-2005, 11:02 PM
I fly the VIII because it looks better

01-29-2005, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
I suppose the 4 .303 would be better.. more chance of hitting the target, and giving a BF-109 a fuel leak. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In real life it was shown .303s couldn`t hurt the 109s fuel tank from the rear - a dural bulkhead armor behind it prevented them from doing so. But rifle caliber MGs were terribly ineffective anyway, hence the change by everybody to .50s asap...

As for the MkVIIIs, it`s a new airframe, streghtneded, retractable tailwheel, short span ailerons which didn`t really work out. Engine(s), armament, the same. The biggest improvement imho was the adding of wing fuel tanks, increasing range on internal fuel to 740miles from a mere 434miles, (85imp galls -> 120 img internal). Which is why most MkVIIIs went to the far east, the IXs range was short for even domestic operations, droptanks don`t help if you cant get home after dropping them!

However, as everything, it come at a price, weigh went from 7450 lbs to 7700 lbs, which definietely made the plane somewhat less manouverable, no matter what people say. There was no aircraft in history yet that would benefit from greater weight with the same engine/power...

The subsequent Griffon powered XII and XIV Spits were also based on the 'new' airframe.