PDA

View Full Version : Achtung spitfire fans!



ImpStarDuece
03-22-2005, 04:46 AM
I have just found the fantastic Fourth Fighter group website which has an amazing section dedicated to the official performance tests of the Spitfire I, IIA, V, VII, IX, XII, XIV, and 21 as well as tests for the Seafire IIC, L.IIC, III, XV and 47!

Check it out, everything for Boscombe Downs official tests, Air ministry documents, Roll Royce speed trials and Naval Air Institute Airfighting trails.

Link is here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ns493.html)

Jagdklinger
03-22-2005, 05:00 AM
Wow, I beat all the other 109 pilots to this thread! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Wait for it, waaaiiit for it.....

ploughman
03-22-2005, 05:05 AM
Some of the Whine-Oh-Neiners have, er, 'issues' with some of the information posted on this site, as I'm sure you are about to find out.

anarchy52
03-22-2005, 08:06 AM
me first me first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

read this:

http://kurfurst.atw.hu/

ploughman
03-22-2005, 08:27 AM
There you go! The Kufurst response in 3!
Some of the source docs are a good read. Notice the engineer's report on the 25lb boosted Merlin 66 - "This engine could be boosted to 28lb!" (If I remember correctly, something like that anyway). And so on. A good site for those documents if nothing else. After reading Kurfurst's rebutle to the Spit XIV analysis I had my reservations about any conclusions drawn from the source material, but life's imperfect.

Arm_slinger
03-22-2005, 09:12 AM
Great find http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh boy does that MkXIV look like ***** on paper or what? Theres going to be a few un happy germans around soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
03-22-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Great find http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh boy does that MkXIV look like ***** on paper or what? Theres going to be a few un happy germans around soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's hoping http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'm sure the whining will be at an unprecedented level. Lets hope the new FM modifications keep everyone a bit happier by having a few less odd ball moves that you can pull some fighters through (the Spitfire accused mostly because of its excellent energy retention being amplified a bit).

HARRIER_401
03-22-2005, 10:20 AM
Prop pitch on the 109 is the most amplified thing in the game.I hope the new flight model will change this.

p1ngu666
03-22-2005, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
There you go! The Kufurst response in 3!
Some of the source docs are a good read. Notice the engineer's report on the 25lb boosted Merlin 66 - "This engine could be boosted to 28lb!" (If I remember correctly, something like that anyway). And so on. A good site for those documents if nothing else. After reading Kurfurst's rebutle to the Spit XIV analysis I had my reservations about any conclusions drawn from the source material, but life's imperfect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

kurfy is master at making 109 look best at everything.
i hope these raf planes turn up in 1 patch all together
poor lw, be like waking up and being hit in teh face with a sledgehammer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG5_UnKle
03-22-2005, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HARRIER_401:
Prop pitch on the 109 is the most amplified thing in the game.I hope the new flight model will change this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another clone! Jeez

Jasko76
03-22-2005, 06:32 PM
I... just... can't... wait!

I like Spits and I'm proud of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HelSqnProtos
03-22-2005, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HARRIER_401:
Prop pitch on the 109 is the most amplified thing in the game.I hope the new flight model will change this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S~!

Right on!

anarchy52
03-23-2005, 03:08 AM
About kurfhurst's page:
He has some pretty valid points, interestingly nobody offered any counter-arguments. Just personal attacks.
I guess myth-o-mania is much more widespread on allied side (P-47, P-51, Spit, deltawood, .50 cals...). Most prefer myth-based joke FM/DM instead of accurate model.

Since I joined this forum I've see much more whines coming from "red side" (whining being defined as baseless (or anecdote or Hollywood bhistory based) Oleg-please-pimp-my-ride or guy-just-shot-me-down-in-my-pimp-wagon-so-his-ride-needs-toning-down)

Let's hope no-one ever gets shot down in MkXIV by a 109 otherwise whining will be unbearable.

Hetzer_II
03-23-2005, 03:26 AM
The reason why noone counter argument with kurfurst is that they dont have any arguments at all which stands against those facts provided from kurfurst....

They are to lazy to collect and search themself.. ignoring things which kurfurst provided so they can keep up their point of view...

I cant take such guys to serious....

And yes.... omg please dont ever let a XIV get shot down from a 109 or 190...
Next thing these kids want is an f18....

Greets

Kurfurst__
03-23-2005, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
kurfy is master at making 109 look best at everything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? Forgive me m8, but you are mad. I made that correctional article in my spare time becuase Mike was manipulating the evidence in a very utter manner. If you`d even bother to read my article it doesn`t even contain any performance comparisons by me, just correcting and showing how Mike was playing tricks with it in every sort of way.

His site is a very good source as long as you are ONLY interested in Spitfires, while not forgetting many of the test there are for experimental planes and prototypes, but it`s complete garbage as soon as he starts his comparisons with 109/190.... look at the Mk V page for example, a curve is posted for the Spit V vs 109F, you know what`s that? The first prototype Mark Vs performance drawn on the same paper along with the performance measured by the Brits on a crashlanded and more-or-less restored 109F, that had engine problems all along the way. dozens of such examples like this on that site. Mike is the most biased man I can think of, what`s worse, he is wagin a campaign using the information in a VERY deceptive manner, creating new myths for those who didn`t spend years of interest with this subject.

And if you want to hear my opinion, the 109 and Spit was always very close, the difference between them was really that the newest 109 models that were comparable to the newest Spit models always become widespread on the battlefield much faster than their Spit counterparts. It didn`t matter much if the Spit I was as good as the 109E, if the latter usually faced Hurricanes, if the 109G usually faced Spit Vs, the 109K only Mk IXs....

ploughman
03-23-2005, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The reason why noone counter argument with kurfurst is that they dont have any arguments at all which stands against those facts provided from kurfurst....

They are to lazy to collect and search themself.. ignoring things which kurfurst provided so they can keep up their point of view... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does that apply to you too? Or is it just everyone else? You got a crystal ball that see's into my mind or are you just making lazy generalisations? Maybe the reason people aren't arguing with Kurfurst is because they read the articles and agree with him and not Mike Williams.

Sphincter

Hetzer_II
03-23-2005, 08:34 AM
@Ploughman

just read what pingu wrote for example and you will see what i mean....


Greets