PDA

View Full Version : Ok, what the heck is the secret to the Spitfire?



Ernst_Rohr
03-10-2008, 09:09 PM
Let me preface this by saying; I don't normally fly the Spit, like ever. I can count the number of times I have flown it on two hands, and still have fingers left.

I am currently flying an online campaign with my squadron, and one of our aircraft has been the Spit, and I am having some serious issues with this so called "n00b" plane.

#1 Its twitchy as hell
Now, I fly Japanese birds a lot, and some of them are pretty twitchy rides (Ki-84, Ki-43II), and as my squadron can attest to, I do pretty well with them. However, the Spit is right up there with them, and I am having some real love/hate issues with it. I have repeatedly swung into a turn with a 109, only to have the damn thing start bucking around on me. And I wont even go into the rudder sensitivity.

What do you Spit lovers do with this thing?


#2 Overheats easily
All I can say is this is one temp sensitive bird. Right up there with the Hellcat, but at least you can alter the prop pitch on the Hellcat. The Spit cooks off right quickly in a low max power fight, right up there with the 109.

Any of you Spit jocks have some good heat management pointers?

#3 Has LOUSY trim characteristics
Flying one for an hour mission has REALLY made me fond of US planes and their trim. ESPECIALLY aileron trim! I found the Spit to be very very sensitive to speed changes across the board. What gives?

#4 Poor forward view!
The forward view also sucks big wind, its just as bad as the 109/190/P47 early. The Spit is really like looking out a porthole!

I am really trying to find something to like about this bird, but it certainly hasn't been easy, can any of you dedicated Spit fans throw some pointers my way?

AFJ_rsm
03-10-2008, 09:23 PM
IBTB

In before the Brain32!

VW-IceFire
03-10-2008, 09:26 PM
This is why "n00b plane" BS comes only from people who haven't had some serious stick time behind the plane. Lots of people will fly just once and dismiss it regardless but you just can't reach those people.

I've actually shied away from the Spitfire quite a bit but I used to fly it allot and I still do occasionally.

View: Yep...limited view is absolutely right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It was never good in real life and its not good here either. Its ok and its visibility out the back is actually pretty good (better in RL). Use the various view modes to get around the tunnel feeling you're getting. But not too much else you can do with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Trim: Watch the slip indicator and keep it centered. Thats all I can suggest. Excessive rudder trim is required as there is no aileron trim like in the US planes.

Overheat: This is a trickier issue. The IX and VIII generally do not overheat at lower altitudes except at full throttle + WEP for a long period of time. At higher altitude with the second stage supercharger going the situation is different and the plane will overheat. But its generally not that bad. The Mark V on the other hand is difficult to manage in some cases and full open radiator is recommended except in combat. Thats what I do anyways. Prop pitch is on an auto/manual setting like a 109 or 190...more like a 190 actually. Usually 100% is fine but feel free to tweak it in the IX. The Mark V has no auto mode...just at 100% all the time unless modified.

Handling: Its very twitchy...apparently the Spit was a very sensitive aircraft and slight movements were all it took. No doubt partly contributing to its good handling but I think most virtual pilots (myself included) over control the plane a bit too much. Tone down the sensitivity or be more deliberate with your stick motions. Keep the plane trimmed out and its generally good. I find it has allot of torque in the turns so its always wanting to pull out...so good rudder co-ordination is essential.

Turning a Spitfire is harder than in a 109 and while you can pull off some very crazy tight turns its much harder to pull off. It does tend to float and sometimes this is to your advantage but other times not. If you can keep it together in the turn you can catch a 109 in a turn easily...but if you don't then he's got a very easy turn back on your six as you flop around in a stall.

Good luck!

M_Gunz
03-10-2008, 10:59 PM
Ernst, S!

Take one in QMB with no enemies and no AA and fly maneuvers with the Slip and Bank guage in
view. You still get to see some over the dash, 1 click down should do, it's twin needles in
one guage usually on the right side mid or lower.

If you don't rudder then esp the IX's will be in slip more than not, and usually a lot of slip. Just fly a few maneuvers without rudder or with some rudder and watch the Slip needle.
I find it takes a lot of rudder on the IX's.

Just a bit of practice following the needle same as you would a ball and a whole lot of twitch
should go. After a while I don't need to watch the needle much. This is one guage that your
butt tells you also where "down" for your plane aligns with your floor so in a sim having a
Ball in the speedbar should make sense -- in one Spit IX for sure Slip & Bank is down at the
bottom of the instruments.

Just check some time how much of the missing aileron trim gets corrected by rudder.

I never tried but you can't get CSP below 100%? Because one way to control gyro forces is to
slow the prop and the high power Spits have plenty of gyro.

Feathered_IV
03-10-2008, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
IBTB

In before the Brain32!

IBP12


In Before Page 12... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Suit up gentlemen. Here we go again for the big six's next round of verbal buggery

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/268159/guy_puts_condom_over_his_head/

crucislancer
03-10-2008, 11:41 PM
Yeah, the Spit is twitchy, but once you get the hang of it's quirks it's a joy to fly. If it's available when I fly online, I'll usually take it, unless the Tempest is available as well.

If memory serves (and it usually doesn't!) the IX 25lbs does not have adjustable radiator shutters. Watch out for that.

Ernst_Rohr
03-11-2008, 06:49 PM
I don't know where the IBTB comment is coming from, I am asking for some advice on how to best use the plane. What exactly is the problem there?

Icefire, Gunz, Crucislancer, thanks for the input.

I have been flying the Mk V, so thats kind of what I am stuck with, but I will try of few of those suggestions and see what I get! Thanks!

VW-IceFire
03-11-2008, 07:06 PM
Mark V is somewhat more of a challenge as it tends to be slower than most of its opposition while with the IX there are some scenarios where its equal to or faster than its opposition. The Mark V is also a bit more twitchy or better handling depending on how you look at it. The IX is heavier and feels heavier when you maneuver it...many pilots say that the Mark V is the best handling of all of the Spitfires. Probably thats after you get the hang of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IBTB comments are about certain notorious forum members who have a thing about the Spitfire...not good things. Best to ignore that but be warned.

Choctaw111
03-11-2008, 07:41 PM
I flew the Spit and its many variants for several years while flying with the 23/33 squadron. It will take some getting used to, but VW-Icefire has already got you off to a good start. Once you spend some time flying it (and learn it) you will really enjoy it.

steiner562
03-11-2008, 07:53 PM
She is a great plane from the get go IMO,hard to fail in.

SeaFireLIV
03-11-2008, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:


I am really trying to find something to like about this bird, but it certainly hasn't been easy, can any of you dedicated Spit fans throw some pointers my way?

Not such a noob `easy` plane after all, is it? Sorry, but after the chorus of nooxishness the Spit has taken over the years it`s nice to see someone actually find it not quite so noobish after all. Just people, usually axis flyers, jumping on the `bash the famous Spit` bandwagon.

The beauty of IL2 is EVERY plane takes some time to learn and fly with skill... Not just 190s or 109s...

R_Target
03-11-2008, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Not such a noob `easy` plane after all, is it? Sorry, but after the chorus of nooxishness the Spit has taken over the years it`s nice to see someone actually find it not quite so noobish after all. Just people, usually axis flyers, jumping on the `bash the famous Spit` bandwagon.

The beauty of IL2 is EVERY plane takes some time to learn and fly with skill... Not just 190s or 109s...

Yeah, I never got that. I find the IL2 Spit to be a struggle sometimes, and the 109 quite easy by comparison.

zardozid
03-11-2008, 10:43 PM
I always found it ironic that people called the Spitfire a nOOb aeroplane as it seems that more nOOb's fly the FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

crucislancer
03-11-2008, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Yeah, I never got that. I find the IL2 Spit to be a struggle sometimes, and the 109 quite easy by comparison.

Same here. But, I don't get the chance to fly the Spit that often, though I'm rectifying that with some offline campaigns.

DKoor
03-12-2008, 02:39 AM
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/deadhorse.gif

Manu-6S
03-12-2008, 03:23 AM
I't called confidence... in a Spit you are overconfident and the plane becomes twitchy.

Usually your overconfidence takes you to:

- be too slow
- pull hard the stick

These plus no SA will kill you (even if a spin in that plane isn't always a bad thing... sometimes give to you an overshoot opportunity since she'll autorecover without losing speed).

Avoiding these 3 things and using tactic you will be ok.

And yes, visual from the cockpit isn't great (except the noseless...)

Brain32
03-12-2008, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
IBTB

In before the Brain32!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Love to see my reputation is still strong, however I'm not discussing such topics here anymore as it's pointless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Love to read this one-sided discussions here though, pretty darn funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

gdfo
03-12-2008, 04:27 PM
Ernst,

Many player do find the spit 'twichy' after the 3.5 patch. I do.

I think there are a combinations of factors to consider.

Type of stick you use.
Your Style of handling it.
Sensitivity setting in the game
Use of a 'stick' utility.

There are 2 utilities that you can try.

'IL Sticks' and 'IL Joy Control'

Each one of them allow you to adjust many different sensitivity settings with out starting the game. Some players I know use dfferent settings for each plane they play with.

With the current 4.08 patch, certain planes seem easier to control than others for me.
The -109G2 and the Mitsubishi 21 fly real easy to me, at least.
Try one of the utilities I listed and turn the sensitiviites down on your elevator and rudder and set the trim sensitivities to 45 or less. see what happens.

Good Luck

Viper2005_
03-12-2008, 05:13 PM
Spitfires (and here I mean the IX in particular since they're the most popular Mark) have good points and bad points.

<span class="ev_code_green">On the up side:

- They're easy to fly, with an abundance of power and no particular handling vices.

- They've got reasonable firepower with cannon, and reasonable firing duration with MGs.

- They can carry some useful external stores such as bombs and droptanks, whilst the Seafire can even carry rockets.

- They have lots of excess power, and a low wingloading, which translates into very good sustained turn performance, a high rate of climb and a steep maximum climb angle as well as excellent low-speed acceleration.

- They have very good engine automation, so "complex" engine management isn't all that complex.

- They have a reasonably high VNE.

- They have good altitude performance, especially in the case of the HF, though this should not be your Spitfire of choice below about 7500 m.</span>

These features mean that you can get close to the enemy, then throw your Spitfire about the sky to get behind him for an easy shot. If you're not good at deflection shooting you therefore still stand a decent chance of scoring.

Because of the low workload required to actually fly the aeroplane, you can devote a lot of your mental capacity to building SA and developing your tactics.

However, if you end up in a manoeuvring fight you've got the performance necessary to prevent almost any Luftwaffe aeroplane from latching on to your tail. Since most people are very bad at deflection shooting, this goes a long way towards keeping you safe. Indeed, because of your superior turn performance, if most Luftwaffe aeroplanes try to angle fight you, you stand a pretty good chance of turning the tables.

If you're inexperienced, then the chances are that you won't be able to manage an energy fight. In that case, the Spitfire's impressive SEP and low wingloading are very useful because they can often allow you to get away with a naive "point & shoot" approach to flying which just wouldn't wash in for example an Fw-190.

Of course, if your opponent is an experienced energy fighter then you'll lose. But then if he's experienced and you're not then you'd expect to lose anyway...
<span class="ev_code_red">On the down side:

- They're slow, so if you get into a many v many engagement then it's probably death or glory unless you're relatively experienced in more subtle disengagement strategies because you can't simply turn tail and run. Its low speed can be very inconvenient for wingmen in faster aircraft who will have to weave to stay with you.

- They've got a relatively poor rear view, though this is slightly compensated by the mirror. Essentially you need to weave & bellycheck regularly to stay safe, though since all aircraft have blindspots you should bellycheck whatever you're flying unless you're substantially faster than the opposition.

- They don't have ammo counters, so either you end up bringing ammunition home or running out at a crucial moment. Given the difficulty of disengagment in a Spitfire this often means that you'll end up being quite conservative in this regard, which can really hurt combat persistance unless you're a "death or glory" type.</span>

***

The Spitfire is one of the easiest aeroplanes to score kills with. Equally it's also a very easy aeroplane in which to die heroically, especially if T&B is your thing...

It can of course be used effectively as an energy fighter too. However, if you can energy fight then there are other aeroplanes which are arguably better suited to the task. Crucially it's a lot easier to stay alive in those faster energy fighters because you can "run away bravely". Arguably the more experienced you become, the less persuasive the Spitfire's advantages become when compared with for example an Fw-190...

Xiolablu3
03-12-2008, 06:07 PM
Good post Viper.

Spitfires annoy some people because they give a new player an easy plane to fly and get kills in.

I have seen some absolutely unbelievable ranting and crying online after some people have been killed by a Spitfire...one of them very well known for moaning about the Spitfire in these forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its a nice plane, it gives Red a decent plane with which to stand up vs the awesome FW190/Bf109 combo, however as Viper has said, the better pilot you become, the more you see the disadvantages of the Spit vs other planes.

ploughman
03-12-2008, 06:42 PM
If you chose to dogfight then watch out for a few things.

At most speeds the plane will turn quicker than you can take, so watch you don't black out. If you have a force feed back joystick this is invaluable in allowing you to ride the edge of a stall in a Spit.

The Spit retains energy well but isn't necessarily as fast or as a quick an accelerating plane as those you might find yourself against so use the vertical to store energy when changing direction rather than turning in the horizontal plane, on the other hand, take care when you do this you're not setting yourself up, at the apex of one of these 'Lindberg' turns you're vulnerable to getting very nailed.

Don't dive with 109s/190s. Stay high and keep the advantage.

The stall in the Spit's predictable in game and very easy to emerge from. As a 'get out of jail' card I'd use this if you find you're about to get spanked and you need to move out of someone else's firing solution, you'll probably get blasted anyway, but it might save you from the jaws of death once in a while. Just make sure they're close.

MB_Avro_UK
03-12-2008, 06:59 PM
Hi all,

We need a later Mark than the Mk IX (Nine) but that's not going to happen.

We have late Marks of the 109 and 190.

This is not a level playing field for the Spitfire.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Viper2005_
03-12-2008, 08:04 PM
Yes and No.

We have relatively late Spitfire IXs with Merlin 66 and Merlin 70 engines rather than 61s and 63s, which leaves a big gap after the performance of the Spitfire V, so there's a yo-yo effect mid-war where the available Spitfires simply don't line up with reality, especially at low level where the Merlin 61 Spitfire IX was basically identical to or worse than the later Spitfire Vs in performance.

IIRC most Spitfires were Mk IXs and Mk. Vs, so whilst we're missing out on some interesting aeroplanes, Oleg has probably picked the correct ones given that he and his team had limited resources.

We have some late war 109s and 190s, but there is no need to line them up against Spitfire IXs any more than there is a need to line Me262s up in that context.

If the Spitfires we have are used against 190A6-8s, or Bf-109G2s G6s and perhaps the odd late-war 109G most of the time then there isn't much of a problem.

The other issue is that we tend to want even team balance online, but by the time the Luftwaffe got its hands on the really high performance late war kit IRL the odds were far from even...

AKA_TAGERT
03-12-2008, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
IBTB

In before the Brain32! ROTFL

VW-IceFire
03-12-2008, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

We need a later Mark than the Mk IX (Nine) but that's not going to happen.

We have late Marks of the 109 and 190.

This is not a level playing field for the Spitfire.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
This is true...we're missing the next notable version which is the XIV. Actually if we were to fill out the Spitfire "portfolio" to match the 109 and 190 for each year we should really have a Mark I, a later model with higher boost Mark V, the IX's that we already have plus the 1942 F.IX with Merlin 61, plus the XIV, plus the XVI. That would cover us with all of the major and important variations in Europe. The Mark VIII is important elsewhere.

That all said...the LF.IX was still in heavy use right up until May 7 1945. Many squadrons did not get the chance to convert to the XIV or later marks until after the war was over. If not the LF.IX then the squadrons were using the XVI which was the same plane but with a US built Packard Merlin 266. Some of these had cut down rear canopies and almost all of these were used in 2nd TAF squadrons...largely as fighter bombers. They were "bomb trucks" at that point. Some reports indicate that the Mark IXs tended to out perform the XVIs in formation flying on account of the different engine being not quite as good. Some truth to that but the results are variable.

So as marks and models go...we do have the right ones. Just need more to fill out the portfolio a bit.

Viper2005_
03-12-2008, 10:46 PM
Not to mention a Mark II, and a Mk. Va in memory of Douglas Bader...

Then again, we're also short of most of Hawker's important aeroplanes, from the more common British Hurricanes (rather than export versions) through to the tank-busting Hurricane Mk.IV, the Typhoon and the +11/2850 Tempest. Ditto Avro's mighty Lancaster, the Vickers Wellington and all manner of Mosquitoes, especially the B.IV and its cookie. (Then again of course there are no heavy bomber cockpits, which I think is tragic.)

I think that it's very sad that the game doesn't use its already excellent bombsight system to model Photographic Reconnaissance, since all that would actually be needed is to take a screenshot through a bombsight and compare this with the target. Given that the game already knows the map geometry and aircraft position via data collected for track recording it should be very easy to work out if the target area has been covered by the virtual photograph from simple trigonometry... This would breathe new life into many aeroplanes (especially the HF Spitfire) and would make for interesting variety online... It would also of course be an excuse to ask for a beautiful PR Spitfire! In particular however, I think that it is important to remember the low altitude PR work conducted by Spitfires, since most of the press these days goes to the high altitude blue aeroplanes rather than the low altitude pink aeroplanes with oblique cameras (and often guns). Low level over Germany or even the channel ports strikes me as being even more terrifying than the individual stratospheric stuff more commonly recorded. Anyway, that's another PR Spitfire added to the wishlist...

<span class="ev_code_yellow">As for the Spitfire Mk. XVI</span>, the Merlin 266 was identical to the 66 in most respects. Packard engines were mass produced to automotive tolerances which AFAIK were somewhat tighter than aviation tolerances due to the demands of mass production, so in this respect the engine was arguably superior to the original. However the Packard engines had slightly different reduction and supercharger gear ratios (because Packard had different gear grinding kit), which would mean that a Spitfire XVI wouldn't attain the same cruise performance as a IX if both were set at identical boost and rpm at most altitudes.

The difference would be a function of altitude, since due to the slightly different supercharger gear ratios the 266 had different FTHs from the 66.

This doesn't necessarily mean that one engine was superior to the other; they were simply different, and it's easy to see how this could have been extremely annoying in mixed formations or if pilots were forced to switch between aircraft regularly.

No41Sqn_Banks
03-13-2008, 02:52 AM
My experience in the Spitfire has a good overall performance ("good" speed, climb and turn). So you have "good" chances in every situation (superior and inferior). That makes it realtive easy to deal with unexperienced opponents and this is IMHO the foundation of the "noob plane" legend.

On the other hand it is very difficult to fight an experienced opponent, because the speed of the Spitfire is only "good" and not "excellent" like for example in Fw 190 or Bf 109.

IMHO it's easy for an experienced pilot to fight in Fw 190 or Bf 109 as long as you have the superior situation (which is the case on most dogfight server). On the other hand in a inferior situation your cards with a Spitfire are much better .

This is what makes the Spitfire so interesting and challenging for me.

OD_
03-13-2008, 05:28 AM
Treat your kite like you treat your woman... Get inside her five times a day and take her to Heaven and back.

True as anything, applies very well to the Spitfire! Treat her badly she'll give you a hard time, ease it around the sky and she'll be perfect...just don't let it see a mirror or you'll be stuck for ages!

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 06:42 AM
Anyone used to seeing Spits online flown by newbs might get the impression that they are extra
slow. Good Spit pilots would chew such players up before they knew what was happening.

buzz999_077
03-13-2008, 04:11 PM
The Spit isn't a noob plane IMO. Unlike the La you can put yourself in the dirt rather easily with it. You might try messing with your stick settings a little to help with the twichhiness.

MB_Avro_UK
03-13-2008, 05:45 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 MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

We need a later Mark than the Mk IX (Nine) but that's not going to happen.

We have late Marks of the 109 and 190.

This is not a level playing field for the Spitfire.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
This is true...we're missing the next notable version which is the XIV. Actually if we were to fill out the Spitfire "portfolio" to match the 109 and 190 for each year we should really have a Mark I, a later model with higher boost Mark V, the IX's that we already have plus the 1942 F.IX with Merlin 61, plus the XIV, plus the XVI. That would cover us with all of the major and important variations in Europe. The Mark VIII is important elsewhere.

That all said...the LF.IX was still in heavy use right up until May 7 1945. Many squadrons did not get the chance to convert to the XIV or later marks until after the war was over. If not the LF.IX then the squadrons were using the XVI which was the same plane but with a US built Packard Merlin 266. Some of these had cut down rear canopies and almost all of these were used in 2nd TAF squadrons...largely as fighter bombers. They were "bomb trucks" at that point. Some reports indicate that the Mark IXs tended to out perform the XVIs in formation flying on account of the different engine being not quite as good. Some truth to that but the results are variable.

So as marks and models go...we do have the right ones. Just need more to fill out the portfolio a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Late war, the LW was perhaps finished. The LW aircraft that the Spitfire Mk IX encountered were few and often flown by new and inexperienced pilots.

So the Mk IX (nine) was in general sufficient for the task at that time in a historical perspective.

But if we forward to today's online servers, the Mk IX has to face the 109k etc flown by experienced virtual pilots.

That's the difference between history and online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

SeaFireLIV
03-13-2008, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by OD_:


True as anything, applies very well to the Spitfire! Treat her badly she'll give you a hard time, ease it around the sky and she'll be perfect...just don't let it see a mirror or you'll be stuck for ages!

Good one! this is how I see the Spit. although, I didn`t think of the mirror analogy!

Ratsack
03-13-2008, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
IBTB

In before the Brain32!

IBP12


In Before Page 12... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Suit up gentlemen. Here we go again for the big six's next round of verbal buggery

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't know you could say 'buggery' in here!

Ratsack

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
That's the difference between history and online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

One of many but not any less important because of it.

Ernst_Rohr
03-13-2008, 10:55 PM
Thanks for all the input!

I am used to flying the various 109's and 190's (ask my squadron why they wont let me fly Doras! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif ) But the Spit has been an interesting experience so far. Definitely interesting to be flying what I usually shoot at, and its given me some interesting perspectives on the Spit.

M_Gunz
03-14-2008, 03:13 AM
Finding strengths and weaknesses?

Ernst_Rohr
03-14-2008, 10:30 PM
Definately.

First off, I am getting a great workout from playing "stomp the rudder"! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Getting used to the slip needle is a bit of a chore, but its coming along.

It dives well and turns well, I just have to give it more rudder and watch the input. I am considering altering my joystick and rudder inputs (especially the rudder) to compensate a bit.

I guess the weird part is that I have gotten used to flying E-fighters, and I seem to be stuck in a "hybrid" mode, which feels to me like I suck in both departments. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I will find out tomorrow when our next match is up.

M_Gunz
03-15-2008, 07:07 AM
Work on that hybrid mode! Pure flat turning is a trap in itself! Maybe bring the hybrid
more to the angles-fighter strengths but don't stop using some vertical here and there at
least it makes your next position less certain, you have more choices.

It will take hours of practice before you have the rudder down, we don't have cues and clues
in sim that we would in real. But seeing the needle, and you actually looked(!), it tells
so much most players don't seem to know.

Once you have it down not even perfect do a short flight track without looking then watch the
track with manual view control to see how well you did for the feedback. Coaches in sports
here do that with athletes and it helps them improve. I get to where only in the fast changes
is the needle much off center without looking, it's better not to shoot then for me but at
least I'm a better shot the rest of the time.

Oh yeah, them Spits are twitchy with high torque, p-factor, spiral-wash and the rest to weight
planes! The slower you get the worse those are. But with good piloting they are more like
the reputation.

JtD
03-15-2008, 07:16 AM
The E-wing is a 1944 feature, isn't it? The IXE imho is a perfect representative for a 1944 frontline Spit. Better than some, worse than others but on the average pretty much ok.

Xiola
03-15-2008, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The E-wing is a 1944 feature, isn't it? The IXE imho is a perfect representative for a 1944 frontline Spit. Better than some, worse than others but on the average pretty much ok.

Yes its fine for a 1944 Spit, however its usually put up against 1945 planes like the Dora.

If you are going to use the 'most common', then we must use those for the blue side, that means FW190A8's and a mix of 109G6/G10/G14 for the Luftwaffe, however it rarely seems to turn out that way.

Of course you can run the SPitfire IX at 100% WEP for almost the whole game, so I guess this makes up for it a bit, but this doesnt help with top speed.

JtD
03-15-2008, 08:57 AM
It's usually up against 109G-2, G-6, G-6late, Fw 190A-5, A-6 and A-51.65 ata. Sounds a bit unfair to me, considering that all that is only 1943 opposition.

Xiola
03-15-2008, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
It's usually up against 109G-2, G-6, G-6late, Fw 190A-5, A-6 and A-51.65 ata. Sounds a bit unfair to me, considering that all that is only 1943 opposition.

Its the Spitfire IXC which is in 1943, its most definitely a 1943 plane.

The IXE is 1944.

VW-IceFire
03-15-2008, 11:39 AM
IXe was used well through to the end of the war as were IXc's. The different wing/armament setup was allocated mostly by need depending on which squadrons were carrying bombs more often. The 250lb bombs on the wing racks tended to put more stress on the wing and the E type armament/wing was slightly differently weighted (due to the armament) and strengthened to allow for the bombs to be carried more safely as there were a few problems.

DKoor
03-15-2008, 11:52 AM
We have Spit25.

Xiola
03-15-2008, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
IXe was used well through to the end of the war as were IXc's. The different wing/armament setup was allocated mostly by need depending on which squadrons were carrying bombs more often. The 250lb bombs on the wing racks tended to put more stress on the wing and the E type armament/wing was slightly differently weighted (due to the armament) and strengthened to allow for the bombs to be carried more safely as there were a few problems.

Yeah, I was just making the point that the Spit IXc was around in increasing numbers from the start of 1943 to the end.

M_Gunz
03-15-2008, 11:38 PM
And to think they stopped making Fairey Battles..........

JtD
03-15-2008, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Xiola:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's usually up against 109G-2, G-6, G-6late, Fw 190A-5, A-6 and A-51.65 ata. Sounds a bit unfair to me, considering that all that is only 1943 opposition.

Its the Spitfire IXC which is in 1943, its most definitely a 1943 plane.

The IXE is 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said the E is usually up against 1943 opposition. Your reply is pointless.

No41Sqn_Banks
03-16-2008, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiola:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's usually up against 109G-2, G-6, G-6late, Fw 190A-5, A-6 and A-51.65 ata. Sounds a bit unfair to me, considering that all that is only 1943 opposition.

Its the Spitfire IXC which is in 1943, its most definitely a 1943 plane.

The IXE is 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said the E is usually up against 1943 opposition. Your reply is pointless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you should leave the server/campaign http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
03-16-2008, 05:38 AM
Why? I can fly the Fw 190 A-4 against any Spit with success. There were A-4's used in 1944, as well as the 1943 LW models.

So it's neither frustrating nor unhistorical.

The other perspective is that a Fw is always a threat.

So it's not boring.
----
p.s. The point I was trying to make, which may have escaped everybody, is that the phrase "usually up against" is plain stupid. No matter if it's late war or mid war opposition. Totally up to the individual experience what is perceived as "usual".

mynameisroland
03-16-2008, 06:52 AM
I dont understand the strong reaction to the Spitfire IXe vs 43 Luftwaffe opposition, other than the fact that its a 44 designated wing aramanent. In IL2 its performance matches the IXc and VIII so all that differentiates it are the two .50 cals. Yes Id prefer the two .50 cals over the 4 x .303s but Id still chose a 43 VIII over a 44 IXe if available.

Bremspropeller
03-16-2008, 08:37 AM
Is there any performance-difference between the VIII and the IX?

I mean IRL and in-game...

VW-IceFire
03-16-2008, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Is there any performance-difference between the VIII and the IX?

I mean IRL and in-game...
In both real life and in-game the performance differences are minor to almost non-existant. The differences are so small that its not worth mentioning when you're flying in combat. The Mark VIII was supposed to replace the V but its development took longer than was expected owing to some changes in the structure. The IX ended up being just as good despite the fact that it was essentially just a modified V (which itself was just a modified I).

The VIII is important to the Spitfire line because it was sent to serve in theaters where the IX was not present (not sure why - perhaps just officialdom organizing things arbitrarily) and because it laid the groundwork for the XIV which was a modified VIII.

Bremspropeller
03-16-2008, 09:20 AM
The VIII looks better IMHO - but then again, it was made by a different 3d-artist than the V and IX.

Kurfurst__
03-16-2008, 09:24 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 Bremspropeller:
Is there any performance-difference between the VIII and the IX?

I mean IRL and in-game...

In both real life and in-game the performance differences are minor to almost non-existant. The differences are so small that its not worth mentioning when you're flying in combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mark VIII carried 50% more fuel with its wing tanks, and a result it was some 300 lbs heavier.. 300 lbs extra weight is not a minor difference (its like having gondies or not on a 109..), however in the sim the Mk VIII weights exactly the same as the Mk IX, despite the extra weight and fuel.

The Mk VIII was also a cleaner design with retractable tailwheel. So one would expect the VIII to be a poorer climber, having larger turning circle and perhaps worser turn time, and a few mph faster, and of course above all, much longer ranged.

Bremspropeller
03-16-2008, 09:31 AM
The 300lbs more fuel only affect turn and climb when they're actually in the tank.

Once "flown away", the fuel doen't harm the a/c's performance.

I'd rather have some extra 150kg of fuel for the climb and initial cruise stage of the flight.
That leaves me longer loiter time and, in case of need, longer time for max engine performance - unlike the 109Es over Britain...

VW-IceFire
03-16-2008, 09:47 AM
Don't think the extra tanks are modeled in IL-2. If they are it doesn't matter too much...people just fly with 50% fuel anyways. Some will take 50% fuel and a 30gal slipper tank. Drop that once combat gets interesting and its not a big deal. Certainly its a gaming the game sort of thing but practically speaking the differences are minor.

Despite the slightly cleaner lines the VIII only picks up maybe 1-2mph the last time I consulted the charts. Hardly worth mentioning.

luftluuver
03-16-2008, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Mark VIII carried 50% more fuel with its wing tanks, and a result it was some 300 lbs heavier.. 300 lbs extra weight is not a minor difference (its like having gondies or not on a 109..), however in the sim the Mk VIII weights exactly the same as the Mk IX, despite the extra weight and fuel.
More like 40% more fuel and 280lb. (124gal vs 85gal)

Mk VIII
wing tanks - 2 x 14gal
lower tank - 49gal
upper tank - 47gal

Mk IX
lower tank - 37gal
rear fuselage tank - 33gal or 41 gal

Correct Brem, most if not all of the extra fuel would be used by the time any combat occured.

Bremspropeller
03-16-2008, 10:23 AM
A sidenote to Spit-drivers:

The Spit appears to be quite a biatch in-game, concerning ground-handling and t/o and landing behaviour.

I've never read of such problems.
Looks like it's quite screwed-up in-game...much like the 190 (though to a different extent).

M_Gunz
03-16-2008, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
p.s. The point I was trying to make, which may have escaped everybody, is that the phrase "usually up against" is plain stupid. No matter if it's late war or mid war opposition. Totally up to the individual experience what is perceived as "usual".

Something about gamers having the hot-test rides for any period?

M_Gunz
03-16-2008, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In both real life and in-game the performance differences are minor to almost non-existant. The differences are so small that its not worth mentioning when you're flying in combat.

Is that under special circumstances like the VIII running with less fuel by some 200 or so lbs?

I just wondered if the historic figures would tell us different what someone's 'adjustment' due
to selected details would have it be?

Xiolablu3
03-16-2008, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiola:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's usually up against 109G-2, G-6, G-6late, Fw 190A-5, A-6 and A-51.65 ata. Sounds a bit unfair to me, considering that all that is only 1943 opposition.

Its the Spitfire IXC which is in 1943, its most definitely a 1943 plane.

The IXE is 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said the E is usually up against 1943 opposition. Your reply is pointless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have NEVER seen the Spitfire IXE 1944 up against 1943 opposition in my life online.

Your observation is pointless, and wrong.

Can you find me one server which puts the SPitfire IXE 1944 up against 1943 opposition?

JtD
03-16-2008, 12:06 PM
Hm, I explained myself and you still didn't get me. What else can I do?

VW-IceFire
03-16-2008, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In both real life and in-game the performance differences are minor to almost non-existant. The differences are so small that its not worth mentioning when you're flying in combat.

Is that under special circumstances like the VIII running with less fuel by some 200 or so lbs?

I just wondered if the historic figures would tell us different what someone's 'adjustment' due
to selected details would have it be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Even with added fuel weight...its not going to be significantly different. Yes a bit slower to climb and yes a bit worse in the turn but I can only see it being by a little. Unfortunately I haven't found any pilots comparing the two marks...largely because the VIIIs tended to be sent where the IXs weren't. The Spitfires in Burma in 1944 for instance were VIIIs (and old beaten up Vc's) and they were up against a vastly different opposition in the form of the Ki-43-II than the IXs against the 109 and 190s. So historically speaking...if thats what your asking...harder to find out. Some of the USAAF and RAF squadrons in Italy in 1944 flew VIIIs against 109s and Macchis and the like but nobody seems to have mentioned the VIII being much different in handling than the others. Nothing I've ever read anyways.

Oh...except for the VIIIs with the extended wings which served in at least one squadron around the time of the Anzio landings that I know about.

Richardsen
03-16-2008, 03:29 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 M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In both real life and in-game the performance differences are minor to almost non-existant. The differences are so small that its not worth mentioning when you're flying in combat.

Is that under special circumstances like the VIII running with less fuel by some 200 or so lbs?

I just wondered if the historic figures would tell us different what someone's 'adjustment' due
to selected details would have it be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Even with added fuel weight...its not going to be significantly different. Yes a bit slower to climb and yes a bit worse in the turn but I can only see it being by a little. Unfortunately I haven't found any pilots comparing the two marks...largely because the VIIIs tended to be sent where the IXs weren't. The Spitfires in Burma in 1944 for instance were VIIIs (and old beaten up Vc's) and they were up against a vastly different opposition in the form of the Ki-43-II than the IXs against the 109 and 190s. So historically speaking...if thats what your asking...harder to find out. Some of the USAAF and RAF squadrons in Italy in 1944 flew VIIIs against 109s and Macchis and the like but nobody seems to have mentioned the VIII being much different in handling than the others. Nothing I've ever read anyways.

Oh...except for the VIIIs with the extended wings which served in at least one squadron around the time of the Anzio landings that I know about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IX had a slightly better handling when lightly loaded. It also climbed a bit better.
VIII being slightly faster.

Spitfire Mark 1, 2, 5 and 9 where the best spits for doing aerobatics. LF Va being the best!

M_Gunz
03-16-2008, 06:18 PM
I looked up on spitfirereports.com to find there is no "the" VIII like the IX's and that
climb at least of the Merlin 66 VIII neats the Merlin 66 and 70 Spit IX's at sea level
and appx 18,000 ft, fth of the 66.

Full fuel and ammo (operational weight) for at least the majority made Merlin 66 versions
is given at (just a bit under) 7800 lbs and the Merlin 66 IX (after digging) just under 7500
lbs and some correction given to the collected data to reflect 95% takeoff weight.

Close is a good word for it. I'm guessing that the VIII was cleaner drag-wise.
300 lbs is a whopping 4% of the Spit IX Merlin 66 operational weight.

VW-IceFire
03-16-2008, 09:33 PM
Yep...effectively close. My original point largely being that if you're a pilot in a 109, or a 190, or whatever it is thats facing off against a Spitfire...a VIII or an IX makes little difference to you as the performance differences are just not worth noting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
03-16-2008, 10:19 PM
There's more differences IRL with different engines and boosts within the types than between IMO.
Maybe some day SOW or another sim will have full 'lineages'.

OD_
03-18-2008, 05:39 AM
Give me a choice between a MkVIII and a MkIXe and the MkVIII wins everytime, especially if there is a CW version around. I'll happily take on anything with that plane.

I don't know what it is about it but it just seems to handle better, fly sharper and crisper. The MkIX just doesn't fly as well to me. That could just be me, I know someone who prefers the MkIX. I've dived it faster, roll it faster, especially the CW version. Overall it is may favourite aircraft in game and it ruins 190s all over the shop.

Xiolablu3
03-18-2008, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Hm, I explained myself and you still didn't get me. What else can I do?

Maybe I misunderstood, I thought you were insulting me, lets forget it and move on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

steiner562
03-18-2008, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A sidenote to Spit-drivers:

The Spit appears to be quite a biatch in-game, concerning ground-handling and t/o and landing behaviour.

I've never read of such problems.
Looks like it's quite screwed-up in-game...much like the 190 (though to a different extent).
Cant agree with the above comment comment,lock the tail wheel and all these "ground handling probelms" soon dont exist.

crucislancer
03-18-2008, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by steiner562:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A sidenote to Spit-drivers:

The Spit appears to be quite a biatch in-game, concerning ground-handling and t/o and landing behaviour.

I've never read of such problems.
Looks like it's quite screwed-up in-game...much like the 190 (though to a different extent).
Cant agree with the above comment comment,lock the tail wheel and all these "ground handling probelms" soon dont exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

Don't see a problem with ground handling on the 190, either.

OMK_Hand
03-18-2008, 02:04 PM
For what it's worth, and hopefully it's of interest, all marks of the Spitfire in the game respond to RL power settings etc. really well. At least, they don't appear to do any harm and may even be beneficial?

In game terms, i.e. percentages at sea level (unlike many other types the MP doesn't change much with altitude so these are good for most of the time) these settings are in order of 'rpm' - 'throttle':

Mk.V/Seafire take off: 100% 100% (3000 +12)
or: 100% 90% (3000 +9) if not in any great rush.

Mk. VIII/IX take off: 100% 75% (3000 +7 manual mode) unless really heavy or the runway is short.
The manuals recommend that full right rudder trim be used. If you do this then some rapid re-trimming is needed on take off. Right rudder will usually do it if you're ready for the swing.

Mk. V/Seafire Climb: 90% 90% (2850 +9)
Mk. VIII/IX Climb: 90% 95% (2850 +12 in 'manual' mode)

Mk.V/Seafire maximum rate of climb speed: (il2 compare recons: 143 mph which is smack in the middle of these)
RL = 170 mph indicated up to 10,000'. Then:
10 to 16,000': 160 mph IAS
16 to 21,000': 150 mph IAS
21 to 26,000': 140 mph IAS
26 to 31,000': 130 mph IAS
31 to 37,000': 120 mph IAS
Above 37,000': 115 mph IAS

Mk.VIII/IX maximum rate of climb speed: 160 mph to 26,000,. Then
26 to 30,000' : 150 mph IAS
30 to 33,000' : 140 mph IAS
33 to 37,000' : 130 mph IAS
37 to 40,000' : 120 mph IAS
Above 40,000' : 110 mph IAS

Cruise: 75% 75% (2650 +7)
Cruise for maximum range is a bit complicated so I won't bother with it here. I've written enough.

In the Mk.V/Seafire especially, full power - 100% 100% - and emergency war power both have a short duration before overheating problems arise. I'd recommend using climb settings for prolonged combat whenever possible, saving full power for those times when you judge it's needed most, and then in short bursts.
And don't forget to use the radiators.

Hope it's of interest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

thefruitbat
03-18-2008, 02:29 PM
In game i really can't tell u what the difference is, between flying the mk9 and mk8.

I always feel that i should prefer the mk8, because of what i've read, but given the choice, i'd take a mk9, i just seem to fly it slightly better, but why, i don't have a clue???

I would love to know if they have the same flight model, and if this is just placebo, or if they are different in game, what the difference's actually are???

fruitbat

Viper2005_
03-18-2008, 05:02 PM
Spitfire VIII has a much bigger mirror which is a pretty serious advantage...

M_Gunz
03-18-2008, 10:23 PM
I'm trying very hard to not crack jokes about makeup and 'does this make my butt look big'...
oh the strain!

No41Sqn_Banks
03-19-2008, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
For what it's worth, and hopefully it's of interest, all marks of the Spitfire in the game respond to RL power settings etc. really well. At least, they don't appear to do any harm and may even be beneficial?

In game terms, i.e. percentages at sea level (unlike many other types the MP doesn't change much with altitude so these are good for most of the time) these settings are in order of 'rpm' - 'throttle':

Mk.V/Seafire take off: 100% 100% (3000 +12)
or: 100% 90% (3000 +9) if not in any great rush.

Mk. VIII/IX take off: 100% 75% (3000 +7 manual mode) unless really heavy or the runway is short.
The manuals recommend that full right rudder trim be used. If you do this then some rapid re-trimming is needed on take off. Right rudder will usually do it if you're ready for the swing.

Mk. V/Seafire Climb: 90% 90% (2850 +9)
Mk. VIII/IX Climb: 90% 95% (2850 +12 in 'manual' mode)

Mk.V/Seafire maximum rate of climb speed: (il2 compare recons: 143 mph which is smack in the middle of these)
RL = 170 mph indicated up to 10,000'. Then:
10 to 16,000': 160 mph IAS
16 to 21,000': 150 mph IAS
21 to 26,000': 140 mph IAS
26 to 31,000': 130 mph IAS
31 to 37,000': 120 mph IAS
Above 37,000': 115 mph IAS

Mk.VIII/IX maximum rate of climb speed: 160 mph to 26,000,. Then
26 to 30,000' : 150 mph IAS
30 to 33,000' : 140 mph IAS
33 to 37,000' : 130 mph IAS
37 to 40,000' : 120 mph IAS
Above 40,000' : 110 mph IAS

Cruise: 75% 75% (2650 +7)
Cruise for maximum range is a bit complicated so I won't bother with it here. I've written enough.

In the Mk.V/Seafire especially, full power - 100% 100% - and emergency war power both have a short duration before overheating problems arise. I'd recommend using climb settings for prolonged combat whenever possible, saving full power for those times when you judge it's needed most, and then in short bursts.
And don't forget to use the radiators.

Hope it's of interest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

+1 good findings. I got to the same results and my squadron flys allways with these settings.

No41Sqn_Banks
03-19-2008, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A sidenote to Spit-drivers:

The Spit appears to be quite a biatch in-game, concerning ground-handling and t/o and landing behaviour.

I've never read of such problems.
Looks like it's quite screwed-up in-game...much like the 190 (though to a different extent).

I've read several real-life accounts that the handling of the Spitfire I on the ground is more difficult than that of the Hurricane I or bi-planes used at that time.

I think the game represents that very good.

stathem
03-19-2008, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
In game i really can't tell u what the difference is, between flying the mk9 and mk8.

I always feel that i should prefer the mk8, because of what i've read, but given the choice, i'd take a mk9, i just seem to fly it slightly better, but why, i don't have a clue???

I would love to know if they have the same flight model, and if this is just placebo, or if they are different in game, what the difference's actually are???

fruitbat

It's a while since I flew them back to back having moved full time onto the Tempest, but

The VIII has a slightly higher Vne and it's a little more stable in the dive (doesn't wind up as much with the torque in the dive)