PDA

View Full Version : Will we EVER get a 1944 or 45 Spitfire?



Lord-Raptor
10-24-2004, 08:07 AM
Will we EVER get a 1944 or 45 Spitfire?
I mean we have 1943 spits but no later spits?
All the Germans and Americans and Russians get there later models but not us brits?!?

Inadaze
10-24-2004, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord-Raptor:
Will we EVER get a 1944 or 45 Spitfire?
I mean we have 1943 spits but no later spits?
All the Germans and Americans and Russians get there later models but not us brits?!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a Mk22 (I think) in the works, but it may be a while before the models complete.

Hopefully we should be getting a Tempest sooner than the Spit, last I heard it was nearly ready.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Inadaze

JSG72
10-24-2004, 08:42 AM
Would rather it was a MK14 Full and cut down.

Tempest/Typhoon will be good though! to go against that other hoped for the Do335.

VW-IceFire
10-24-2004, 08:50 AM
We're trying to get a XIV done for everyone. Got a bunch of people working on external and then internal. If you have sources or references please feel free to provide.

It would be nice to have a Griffon Spit to take up against the best aircraft of 1945 but we'll see how time goes.

LStarosta
10-24-2004, 08:51 AM
Will all the new planes take advantage of PF's canopy opening feature?

Monty_Thrud
10-24-2004, 11:36 AM
Would really love to see the late war spitfire XIV and mk21, also the Typhoon/Tempest we really need them, i seem to spend most of my time online trying to catch late war FW/BF's and failing

heres to the modellers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
XIV
http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/spitxiv.jpg

mk21

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/spit22...jpg

Tempest

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/Tempest_08.jpg

and not forgetting the Mosquito

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/MosMkIV02.jpg

Korolov
10-24-2004, 12:23 PM
I don't know about there not being ANY late war Spitfires. Isn't the Mk IXe (CW) we have now a representative of '44 performance?

Monty_Thrud
10-24-2004, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I don't know about there not being ANY late war Spitfires. Isn't the Mk IXe (CW) we have now a representative of '44 performance? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, if it was it would be using 25lb boost and 150 grade fuel iirc

JG7_Rall
10-24-2004, 01:22 PM
The spits are uber enough as is. We don't need more.

Monty_Thrud
10-24-2004, 02:11 PM
JG7_Rall
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The spits are uber enough as is. We don't need more.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe thats just what the Luftwaffie would have said also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Arm_slinger
10-24-2004, 02:35 PM
You can never have enough Spits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

DmdSeeker
10-24-2004, 02:42 PM
Does any one know how to get the later spits in an offline campaign? I only see the Spit V in the drop down list in my copy of AEP. I can fly single missions; but I'd like to generate fill campaigns.

Thx.

Cajun76
10-24-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Does any one know how to get the later spits in an offline campaign? I only see the Spit V in the drop down list in my copy of AEP. I can fly single missions; but I'd like to generate fill campaigns.

Thx. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have both 2.01 and 2.04 patches installed? Not sure, but there may be no campaign for them. I bet there are some missions done though. Try airwarfare.com in my sig.

WOLFMondo
10-24-2004, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
The spits are uber enough as is. We don't need more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah we do. Germany, USA, USSR and even Japan have late war 44+ fighters represented in this sim but the British don't. An XIV would fit perfectly with this sim, as much as a FW190D9 does, especially given that more XIV's were built than D9'shttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

OldMan____
10-24-2004, 03:46 PM
Just don´t get surprised when people don´t wanna play against you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Something I was thinking. Is it FAIR.. and a CORRECT simmulation to apply the differences due to fuel shortage/unlimited suply (in otehr side)? As part of AIRPLANE performance? Don´t know if you get the point. If this was a PRECISE WAR SIMMULATIOn.. Lw planes would be limited in numbers in the sky. But they are not, since this is a AC SIMMULATIOn, not war simmulation. When introducing fuel supply quality as MANDATORY features of performance we are including a WAR SIMMULATION aspect.. not an aircraft one.

I would love to have an option in future to manage fuel type in same way loadouts are done. It would add an interesting set of possibilities to WHAT IF scenarios. Of course this kind of option would need to be lockeable to ensure historical WAR simmulation for the ones that want that.

Vipez-
10-24-2004, 03:46 PM
IMHO, change name of Spit 9 HF/E to Spit 14. and there it is, your beloved spit 14.. and then why not make a spit 9 1943 version.. (just tuning down perfomance) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

PlimPlam
10-24-2004, 03:47 PM
Dont forget the spit1! We've got all the planes I need for miniBoB fights except for it.

'O and the 110 isnt the right version in game either I think. Ahh well late spit would be nice too.

p1ngu666
10-24-2004, 04:20 PM
spit performance is fine, above 6k or whatever too fast.
be nice to have 44 spits with 25lb boost, that should be equalish to a 109k4 in climb, kurfy may show up and get pendantic, but its bloody close climbrate, whatever the graphs.

42/43 well be the british years tho imo.

got ur mossie, ur typhoon (early ones make sneak into 41 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif) not sure what year XIV is, but early single stage griffons where about in 42 iirec

the typhoon will or should leave anything standing down low in 42/43 (they hunted 190 doing channel raids). mossies we all know are super aircraft and will be a smidge faster than 190, that margin depends on how oleg will model them
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-24-2004, 05:48 PM
i want a Mk1 Spitfire most of all !

early planes are more fun & you knows it spa

Marek_Steele
10-24-2004, 06:13 PM
I guess the spitfire performance over 7k was modified in v3.0, I guess oleg confirmed this (as lw's better acceleration for some planes).
And yes, LW fliers would be happy to see mk14's so that some didn't ban post g6 late series and d9's on servers.
For 44 25lbs boost spits that would be great, but independently to that also remember we have the worst kurfurst engine tuned for poor fuel, not the 605DC (being that the DB is already a rocket).

JG53Frankyboy
10-24-2004, 06:13 PM
perhaps a map were all these planes can historicaly start and land http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

thats the proplem of new planes in IL2 series - very often a correct map is missing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-24-2004, 06:41 PM
OldMan_ your are correct. A Dynamic Campaign with Luftwaffe winning the WAR while using bad gasoline would not make sense.

hop2002
10-24-2004, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>be nice to have 44 spits with 25lb boost, that should be equalish to a 109k4 in climb, kurfy may show up and get pendantic, but its bloody close climbrate, whatever the graphs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit LF IX at 18 lbs boost should have very close climb rate to the K4. At 25 lbs, the Spit should be much better than the K4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For 44 25lbs boost spits that would be great, but independently to that also remember we have the worst kurfurst engine tuned for poor fuel, not the 605DC (being that the DB is already a rocket) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure of this? The K4 in game (2.xx at least) has a climb rate much better than it had even at 1.98 ata. It certainly doesn't appear to be modelled on 1.8 ata.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Something I was thinking. Is it FAIR.. and a CORRECT simmulation to apply the differences due to fuel shortage/unlimited suply (in otehr side)? As part of AIRPLANE performance? Don´t know if you get the point. If this was a PRECISE WAR SIMMULATIOn.. Lw planes would be limited in numbers in the sky. But they are not, since this is a AC SIMMULATIOn, not war simmulation. When introducing fuel supply quality as MANDATORY features of performance we are including a WAR SIMMULATION aspect.. not an aircraft one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see what you're saying, but by ignoring fuel you are in effect modelling planes on a "what if" basis.

FWIW, the Allies used 150 octane in preference to MW50, both allow higher manifold pressures.

WTE_Galway
10-24-2004, 09:13 PM
Prefer an early war MkI myself .. a real pilots plane

these late war birds are more of interest to the online furball crowd

VW-IceFire
10-24-2004, 10:16 PM
Ughhhh...inevitable same bunch of guys shows up, complains the IX is terribly overmodeled, and suggests that we should never get another Spitfire because it upsets them too much.

The Spitfires were amongst the best fighters ever designed. That list is fairly substantial too (Sopwith Camel, Bf-109, Mustang, Skyraider, Tomcat, Su-27, the list goes on) and there were quite a few excellent designs that came from before, during, and just after WWII that I'd put into the same area but lets not discount that the RAF produced thousands of Spitfires of varrying marks and in varrying numbers and had confidence in the design enough to use it from 1940 till 1952 or so. It did its job and it was capable of competing with every opponent it was thrown at.

That said, the Spitfire IX we have is a 1943 machine carrying those characteristics. Oleg has already mentioned that indeed the wrong performance was setup for high altitude on the IX and that it has been corrected. Another mentioned that overheat is more present than before. Both are issues I conceed to points that give the IX an unfair advantage (so much so that they should and apparently have been fixed)...but in no uncertain circumstances did these ever give the IX the same performance as the XIV.

Now, the XIV as I see it. Performance is quite a bit superior to the IX in the things that they considered most important. The top speed is fairly unbelievable, the climb is also similarly impressive. BUT...its not a superfighter. Read some of these comments in comparison between the VIII and XIV and other issues:

"The elevator control of the Spitfire XIV was found to be much heavier than that of the Spitfire VIII, unpleasantlly so, and the other controls felt to be slightly heavier than on previous Spitfire Mks. In spite of heavier controls the Spitfire XIV is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire VIII in turns at all heights. Spins were carried out in the Spitfire XIV at 25,000 feet. The aircraft did not spin voluntarily but had to be put into and held in the spin. Instead of spinning in the normal nose down attitude, the nose of the aircraft oscillated from an almost verticle position downwards to a position with the nose well above the horizon, so that the aircraft was tail down. It spent most of its time in this flat position from which, after four turns, recovery was fast by the normal method or slower if the controls were released. It never appears to become uncontrollable."

"Both aircraft carry the same amount of fuel (96 gallons in the main tank and 27 gallons in two wing tanks.) Refueling checks made to compare consumption showed than when the two aircraft stayed together throughtout the trials, the Griffon engine was using approximately 10-15 gallons more fuel per hour than the Merlin."

"The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX."

"Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity. "

These are all from the AFDU reports when comparison the Spitfire VS other variants. You see the differences and the pluses and minuses. Its not simply just a Spitfire with a bigger more powerful engine. That changes the way the plane works a bit. Translating that to Forgotten Battles...my assumption is that the XIV will still not be as popular as the IX is (or the VIII may be). You won't be able to yank and bank as successfully.

Quite simply, the XIV is heavier and tends to mush in manuvers (as mentioned by Supermarine test pilots and pilot notes of flying the XIV for the first time) moreso than previous versions of the Spitfire.

These, and other reports that I've read give a fairly clear picture of the XIV. Its a powerful fighter, adept at everything it does, but its not perfect and it has its own set of problems.

The Luftwaffe has a Bf-109K-4, a FW190D-9, a Ta-152H, the Japanese have the Ki-84 and very soon hopefully a N1K1-J George, the USAAF has the P-51D, and the VVS have the La-7 and the Yak-9U. All the respective best of the breed aircraft showing each nations technological achievements and all being quite remarkable. There is no reason why the RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF/etc. pilots should be left out if there is no reason to. There's one final good reason...you guys should be warbird lovers regardless of what it is. A Spitfire I, a Spitfire XIV, a 109, a Zero, a B-17 or a G4M Betty...it should all be the fascination with history and the recreation and simulation of a very significant series of moments in the history of the world.

So this post is longer than expected but there's my views on Spitfires and things in general.

WUAF_Badsight
10-24-2004, 10:37 PM
the Spitfires speeds were correct all the way up to 7K before PF

why ppl say it wasnt ?

pourshot
10-25-2004, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just don´t get surprised when people don´t wanna play against you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Something I was thinking. Is it FAIR.. and a CORRECT simmulation to apply the differences due to fuel shortage/unlimited suply (in otehr side)? As part of AIRPLANE performance? Don´t know if you get the point. If this was a PRECISE WAR SIMMULATIOn.. Lw planes would be limited in numbers in the sky. But they are not, since this is a AC SIMMULATIOn, not war simmulation. When introducing fuel supply quality as MANDATORY features of performance we are including a WAR SIMMULATION aspect.. not an aircraft one.

I would love to have an option in future to manage fuel type in same way loadouts are done. It would add an interesting set of possibilities to WHAT IF scenarios. Of course this kind of option would need to be lockeable to ensure historical WAR simmulation for the ones that want that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I see your point but to look at it another way, how would the RAF and USA have responded to LW aircraft with even greater performance than was available with the sometimes low grade fuel and shortage of high grade metals(like would be used in jet engines).

My point is I dont think we would be asking for spit XIV and 21's to combat D9 and k4's if the LW had a free hand to build planes without the restrictions placed on them by the allies we would have a plethora of highly advanced fighters to keep pace.Becuase if you look at how the allies advanced fighter development it was allways just enough to keep on par with the enemey rarely to eclipse him.

So imho it is important to model aircraft performance as it was under combat conditions and if that requires modeling of low grade fuel so be it.

Nubarus
10-25-2004, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
IMHO, change name of Spit 9 HF/E to Spit 14. and there it is, your beloved spit 14.. and then why not make a spit 9 1943 version.. (just tuning down perfomance) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's pretty obvious you have no idea what the Spit XIV's actual performance was like.

Heuristic_ALgor
10-25-2004, 03:11 AM
Heck Dave I'd settle for a Merlin powered Mk. XVI. JUST GIVE ME A BUBBLE CANOPY!

http://www.military.cz/wallpaper/page4/spit_mkxvi.jpg

WOLFMondo
10-25-2004, 06:46 AM
I think Oleg stated at one point there would be no XVI.

Personally, apart from the XIV, i'd like to see a few different engines for the VIII as IMHO thats the best looking merlin powered spit. The PF model is luverly!

Cajun76
10-25-2004, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

*************
The Luftwaffe has a Bf-109K-4, a FW190D-9, a Ta-152H, the Japanese have the Ki-84 and very soon hopefully a N1K1-J George, the USAAF has the P-51D, and the VVS have the La-7 and the Yak-9U. All the respective best of the breed aircraft showing each nations technological achievements and all being quite remarkable. ******** <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pfffffftttttt!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The P-47M and N were the premire fighters of the USAAF, not the ratty MustangDee. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif They just happaned to be more numerous at the time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
10-25-2004, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

*************
The Luftwaffe has a Bf-109K-4, a FW190D-9, a Ta-152H, the Japanese have the Ki-84 and very soon hopefully a N1K1-J George, _the USAAF has the P-51D_, and the VVS have the La-7 and the Yak-9U. All the respective best of the breed aircraft showing each nations technological achievements and all being quite remarkable. ******** <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pfffffftttttt!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The P-47M and N were the premire fighters of the USAAF, not the ratty MustangDee. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif They just happaned to be more numerous at the time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fair enough. I really hope we get one of those too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A P-47N would do nicely at Iwo Jima.

geetarman
10-25-2004, 09:11 AM
Honestly, the MkIX is one of the top 5 planes in the game now. I think you've got the most well rounded Spit the Brits made.

Of course, if they'll make a newer one for you Spit lovers, put it in! However, "Bigger, Further, Faster, Higher" comes with some trade-offs that you might not like in this controlled environment we call IL2.
See the P-51.

JSG72
10-25-2004, 11:50 AM
Gee guys What's with all the nit picking.
I would like the MKXIV because it looks sooo. cool.
I fly mostly LW. and I would like something more representative of the RAF when they tackled the FW190d9s over Northern Germany.
As well as these Spits being used to tackle V1s and used over Burma.

Marek_Steele
10-25-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

Are you sure of this? The K4 in game (2.xx at least) has a climb rate much better than it had even at 1.98 ata. It certainly doesn't appear to be modelled on 1.8 ata.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake then, I thought for previous discussion that we had a slightly overmodeled db in sea level and high alt climb rate (when comparing to a d9 per example). Still, considering the k4's max speed leveled at every alt and aceleration imho (but would change opinion with numbers of course!) it would be very hard for even a 25lbs IX to follow.
Hey, there's also the 4 blade k14 605L http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sorry all for this k4 OT that added nothing new! And just too add, yes I'd love to have both a mk14 and the tempest, I don't want you to think it was a "if you have A, I must have B then!". Cheers!

DmdSeeker
10-25-2004, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:

Do you have both 2.01 and 2.04 patches installed? Not sure, but there may be no campaign for them. I bet there are some missions done though. Try airwarfare.com in my sig. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx for the reply.

Yes; I do have my installation patched up to current levels. I thought that the campaign generator could generate campaigns for any given plane?

Off topic: I do hope this is an aspect which PF has addressed. FB has so many ,arvellous aircraft; but "interface develpment"; that is, object viewer, missions and campaigns etc. etc. seem left behind; which I think is a sad mistake.

Friendly_flyer
10-25-2004, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Does any one know how to get the later spits in an offline campaign? I only see the Spit V in the drop down list in my copy of AEP. I can fly single missions; but I'd like to generate fill campaigns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There€s a trick you do some of the files. A nice gentleman posted the €œhow to€ here about a month ago. I did it my self, and I am now happily flying a campaign with the I-185, something not possible in the game as out-of-the-box. Unfortunately, I have forgotten how I did it. Someone may direct you to the appropriate posting explain the procedure?

JSG72
10-25-2004, 01:35 PM
Yeh Yeh Or maybe a 209,309,609zor mabe even aBV155.
It would appear to me that the reason we haven't got a late war spit or indeed the MK1 is purely for commercial reasons IE. USA,USSR didn't fly them or indeed any of the RAF fliers Must haves.
Also the reasons we don't have German nightfighters.
US didn't fly at night.(Though maybe the forthcoming P-61 may change that!)
Still delighted with game asis though!

faustnik
10-25-2004, 01:37 PM
A Griffon engined Spit would be great, the Tempest would even better. Just got through reading a book about Dora service use. The D-9 pilots thought they had an advantage over every Allied a/c except for the Tempest! (Most of their combat occurred at low level)

Zyzbot
10-25-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JSG72:
US didn't fly at night.(Though maybe the forthcoming P-61 may change that!)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

US did fly at night:

€œParallel development of airborne radar occurred in the United States, Germany, and Great Britain early in WW II. The initial attempts to develop a useable Allied night fighter system turned to modifications of existing airframes and saw variations of the Defiant, Beaufighter, Mosquito, and American A-20, all flown by the RAF. The USAAF directed its attentions to the interim P-70 and P-38, and to the new P-61. In 1941 a contract was awarded to the Northrop Corporation for the design and construction of the P-61 Black Widow, the first U.S. aircraft designed from the drawing board as a night fighter. Lacking sufficient suitable aircraft from U.S. sources, USAAF units acquired and operated the British Beaufighter----and later the Mosquito----with good success in the European theater. In the Pacific, night fighter squadrons operated the P-70 versions of the Douglas A-20 until P-61s could be delivered in 1944. By the end of the war, the P-61 was the standard USAAF night fighter and was in service with 15 of the 16 night fighter squadrons operating in combat theaters. €œ

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/nf.htm

JSG72
10-25-2004, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JSG72:
US didn't fly at night.(Though maybe the forthcoming P-61 may change that!)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

US did fly at night:

€œParallel development of airborne radar occurred in the United States, Germany, and Great Britain early in WW II. The initial attempts to develop a useable Allied night fighter system turned to modifications of existing airframes and saw variations of the Defiant, Beaufighter, Mosquito, and American A-20, all flown by the RAF. The USAAF directed its attentions to the interim P-70 and P-38, and to the new P-61. In 1941 a contract was awarded to the Northrop Corporation for the design and construction of the P-61 Black Widow, the first U.S. aircraft designed from the drawing board as a night fighter. Lacking sufficient suitable aircraft from U.S. sources, USAAF units acquired and operated the British Beaufighter----and later the Mosquito----with good success in the European theater. In the Pacific, night fighter squadrons operated the P-70 versions of the Douglas A-20 until P-61s could be delivered in 1944. By the end of the war, the P-61 was the standard USAAF night fighter and was in service with 15 of the 16 night fighter squadrons operating in combat theaters. €œ

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/nf.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was aware of this and was more generalising. As you quote 15 of the 16 night fighter squadrons flew P-61s (Hopefully coming with awaited patch.)
Think rest of my points stand good though?

JSG72
10-25-2004, 02:51 PM
BTW Faustnik
Was the book you were reading by any chance "Green Hearts First in combat with the Dora 9" by Axel Urbanke.
Excellent read and as you say Tempest most feared.
Could be coming?

VW-IceFire
10-25-2004, 05:30 PM
Oooh that sounds like a Dora book that I may have to look up!

The Dora was faster than the IX and the XIV at lower altitudes as far as I know. The RAF had to use both fighters to counter the Luftwaffe with the FW190D-9 and the Bf-109K-4 being much better at both low and altitude combat in one package (either or).

The Tempest performance drops off about where the XIV's picks up. So I can see the Dora pilots, in a situation where they are fighting exclusively RAF, if flown well...will linger between 4000 and 7000 meters where they have the most even footing no matter who they came across.

Closterman and his Tempest squadron seemed to encounter the D-9's in superior numbers to his own group (ie. 16 Tempest V against 32 D-9). So its a numbers game too.

I get the impression there was a little rivalry between the Tempest and XIV pilots. The Spitfire guys figured they had the better machine due to speed at alt and turning circle while the Tempest pilots figured they had the better machine with a better dive, better low alt speed, and stronger airframe (not to mention firepower). Apparently a Spit XIV dived on a Ar-234 and while he managed to catch the jet bomber, the airframe was permanently warped when he landed and the Spitfire was written off. In a similar encounter, a Tempest dove, got the bomber and returned to base with no serious problems.

Should be fun to run D-9's, Ta-152, and 109K-4/G-10 against Spitfire IXe (tactical fighter bombers), Spitfire XIV, Typhoon IB Late, and Tempest V. Maybe toss in a Mossie and a Bf-110 or a Me-410 if we're lucky. This would be a GREAT matchup in a server. Both sides, if equally arranged, would have a very good chance to get the other if proper tactics and teamwork were employed.

There are of course other great matchups...this is just one.

p1ngu666
10-25-2004, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just don´t get surprised when people don´t wanna play against you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Something I was thinking. Is it FAIR.. and a CORRECT simmulation to apply the differences due to fuel shortage/unlimited suply (in otehr side)? As part of AIRPLANE performance? Don´t know if you get the point. If this was a PRECISE WAR SIMMULATIOn.. Lw planes would be limited in numbers in the sky. But they are not, since this is a AC SIMMULATIOn, not war simmulation. When introducing fuel supply quality as MANDATORY features of performance we are including a WAR SIMMULATION aspect.. not an aircraft one.

I would love to have an option in future to manage fuel type in same way loadouts are done. It would add an interesting set of possibilities to WHAT IF scenarios. Of course this kind of option would need to be lockeable to ensure historical WAR simmulation for the ones that want that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I see your point but to look at it another way, how would the RAF and USA have responded to LW aircraft with even greater performance than was available with the sometimes low grade fuel and shortage of high grade metals(like would be used in jet engines).

My point is I dont think we would be asking for spit XIV and 21's to combat D9 and k4's if the LW had a free hand to build planes without the restrictions placed on them by the allies we would have a plethora of highly advanced fighters to keep pace.Becuase if you look at how the allies advanced fighter development it was allways just enough to keep on par with the enemey rarely to eclipse him.

So imho it is important to model aircraft performance as it was under combat conditions and if that requires modeling of low grade fuel so be it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

miles m52 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
bnzin from the OTHER side of the sound barrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if u look at 42-43, id say the raf had the advantage, typhoon, mossie, prolly enjoying the greatest advantage vs the lw, spit also in the mark 8,9,and griffon spits (mark 12 for example)

and yeah, the mid alt is where the lw will be squeezed by the raf imo

faustnik
10-25-2004, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JSG72:
BTW Faustnik
Was the book you were reading by any chance "Green Hearts First in combat with the Dora 9" by Axel Urbanke.
Excellent read and as you say Tempest most feared.
Could be coming? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JSG72,

This was just one of the small Kagero publications that I was reading. I would like to get the title you mentioned but, the price tag is a little high right now. When a used version shows up on E-Bay though, I'm all over it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Saburo_0
10-25-2004, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Does any one know how to get the later spits in an offline campaign? I only see the Spit V in the drop down list in my copy of AEP. I can fly single missions; but I'd like to generate fill campaigns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There€s a trick you do some of the files. A
nice gentleman posted the €œhow to€ here about a month ago. I did it my self, and I am now happily flying a campaign with the I-185, something not possible in the game as out-of-the-box. Unfortunately, I have forgotten how I did it. Someone may direct you to the appropriate posting explain the procedure? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's something i copied from this forum at some time:
Go to the main FB folder, open the DGen folder, scroll down and find the plane.dat files (they're all together)..Germany is written as such planesDeB, planesDeC, etc, and Soviets are planesRuF, etc..German fighter campaigns are the F=southern, C=central, L=north, and so on, while the soviet fighter campaign is the RuF one, S= Sturmovik...You should be able to figure out the other nationalities by their abbreviations....OK, now you found the files..(We'll use the Soviet fighter campaign as an example...planesRuF.dat file) all you do is double-click that file and you will get a prompt page from Windows, select "pick from a program" and select Notepad....You will now see all planes available for each phase of the campaign, put ypur cursor under the last entry in each section and add the desired plane then press enter to dreate a space between it and the next campaign...example..
LVOV (for some reason, the brackets around the campaign names won't show up here)
I_16TYPE24
MIG_3
I_153P

& here are the correct codes for the various Spits:
SPITFIRE5B
SPITFIRE5BCLP
SPITFIRE5BLF
SPITFIRE5BLFCLP
SPITFIRE9C
SPITFIRE9CCLP
SPITFIRE9E
SPITFIRE9ECLP

P.S. can never have too many Spits, Beautiful airplane! I'd like a bubble top XIV I think, or a Spit V & IX float plane to take on the Rufe in PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
10-26-2004, 02:38 AM
Afaik the E-Wing came in 1944, so three Spit models are from 44.

p1ngu666
10-26-2004, 10:32 AM
the E wing is a 44 thing, but it didnt improve performance, just gave .50cal ingame and more cannon ammo?
its like early 44, around dday spits went to 150octane, thus much better.

so E wing is same time era as g6/late i guess
g6/as and k4 (and i guess g10,14) are all late summer autumn planes i think karaya-x said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

KaRaYa-X
10-26-2004, 10:35 AM
Chronological order

-Bf109G14 spring ---> early 1944
-Bf109G10 / G6AS (which is actually a G14/AS) summer 1944
-Bf109K4 autumn 1944

p1ngu666
10-26-2004, 10:43 AM
ah kk

DmdSeeker
10-31-2004, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Saburo_0:
P.S. can never have too many Spits, Beautiful airplane! I'd like a bubble top XIV I think, or a Spit V & IX float plane to take on the Rufe in PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks very much!

Vipez-
10-31-2004, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
IMHO, change name of Spit 9 HF/E to Spit 14. and there it is, your beloved spit 14.. and then why not make a spit 9 1943 version.. (just tuning down perfomance) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's pretty obvious you have no idea what the Spit XIV's actual performance was like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

eh, I i could push Spit 9 up to 700 kmh (about 435 mph) without overheating and ran it forever at above 6000, so yes, the difference between the coming Spit mk. 14 (about 720 kmh / 447 MPH) is not big, and current modelling of Spit 9 is not that big (ofcourse, I'm not counting PF, which had more realistic perfomance for Spit 9)..

maybe You are right, maybe im just afraid to see the über spits ruling the skys again, as it did for so long in the skys over VWF.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Monty_Thrud
10-31-2004, 10:30 AM
P1ngu666
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the E wing is a 44 thing, but it didnt improve performance, just gave .50cal ingame and more cannon ammo?
its like early 44, around dday spits went to 150octane, thus much better.

so E wing is same time era as g6/late i guess
g6/as and k4 (and i guess g10,14) are all late summer autumn planes i think karaya-x said <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent...then surely it should run at 25lbs boost instead of 18lbs of the earlier Spit IX's

Carnage2681
10-31-2004, 11:02 AM
Yeah more Spits, more Planes for Womans http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But i want them to in the game, also the Mk1

But as Target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Biggs01
11-02-2004, 10:26 AM
As far as the Mk22 is concerned, the external model is almost finished now, am very busy working on the cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

Biggs

Monty_Thrud
11-02-2004, 04:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifExcellent...any chance of a picture http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
11-02-2004, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
P1ngu666
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the E wing is a 44 thing, but it didnt improve performance, just gave .50cal ingame and more cannon ammo?
its like early 44, around dday spits went to 150octane, thus much better.

so E wing is same time era as g6/late i guess
g6/as and k4 (and i guess g10,14) are all late summer autumn planes i think karaya-x said <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent...then surely it should run at 25lbs boost instead of 18lbs of the earlier Spit IX's <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LW would cry.
also i think the performance curve griffon vs merlin, diff alts etc, and the merlins supercharger couldnt maintain 25lbs boost at all alts, BUT i guess it would be equal or greater to one at 18lbs or whatever at any given alt.
raf stangs got 25lb boost too, and handly most noobs would ignore mustang mark II, III, IV http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

spit is a ladies plain compaired to a typhoon anyways, now thats a monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

biggs222
11-02-2004, 04:22 PM
Biggs01 sent me some cool external models of the mk22 but i cant host them can someone host them for me?

MEGILE
11-02-2004, 04:40 PM
Tempest + Spit 22 = ownage.

but then again so does the Spit XIV...

Any info on the Spit22? Just how late did it serve in the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

berg417448
11-02-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Tempest + Spit 22 = ownage.

but then again so does the Spit XIV...

Any info on the Spit22? Just how late did it serve in the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I thought the Mk 22 was a 1946 model?

Arm_slinger
11-02-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
Biggs01 sent me some cool external models of the mk22 but i cant host them can someone host them for me? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll do it if you wish. PT/PM me about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Biggs01
11-03-2004, 03:11 AM
The first production Mk22 flew in March 1945, tho it was too late to see
any combat use.
The Mk21's, as in Monty_Thrud sig were the last of the type to see any service in front line squadrons, performed armed recon over Holland and as I remember attacked a few V2 sites http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

Biggs

MEGILE
11-03-2004, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Biggs01:
The first production Mk22 flew in March 1945, tho it was too late to see
any combat use.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh Lord.. can you say "Banned from servers" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Arm_slinger
11-03-2004, 12:25 PM
INCOMING!!!!!

NNNNNNNNENEEEEEAAARRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWW

"What was that Wilks?"

"Don't know sir, it looked like a Mark 22 Spitfire sir"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/11.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/16.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/18.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/26.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/27.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/30.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/31.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/34.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/Mk22a.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/Mk22b.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/22.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/GGS.jpg

Here we go lads and lasses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I've hosted these on behalf of Biggs01 and Biggs222 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Monty_Thrud
11-03-2004, 12:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif...its beautiful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif...sniff... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif...i love you Biggs time...thanks for this...sniff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif...you guys are beautiful...so when can i have her...tomorrow will do just fine thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
11-03-2004, 01:02 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Biggs01
11-04-2004, 02:43 AM
Arm_slinger, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks for hosting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The geometry is all but finished with, but I'm going to add a couple of small things, namely the ariel under the stbd wing and the brackets for the drop tank. The fabulous skin is being made by the equally fabulous Capt Flushgarden. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Ferranti gunsight is being rebuilt, as I've finally managed to get some better info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers again,

Biggs

p1ngu666
11-04-2004, 10:45 AM
just radiates power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

mk22 is a bugfixed mk21, i dunno how different they are

Cajun76
11-04-2004, 03:18 PM
http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft2/avion2/5335.html#5335

TheStriker_p51d
12-17-2004, 12:21 AM
PLEASE! YESS THIS THING WOULD RULE THE SKYS IN 44-45!

HayateAce
12-17-2004, 12:55 AM
What about the forward VIS? No cockpit shots yet I suppose. MkIX VIS seems worse than 109.

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

http://www.usaircombat.com/F4LL.JPG

Sig.Hirsch
12-17-2004, 01:03 AM
what's cool is that if we have the 22 model , we'll also have the Spit XIV apparently ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif) , cause the differences are very little externally , from what i've read .

WOLFMondo
12-17-2004, 01:25 AM
Different wings and different standard armament is the main difference.

WTE_Ibis
12-17-2004, 02:14 AM
Maaa8,bloody beautiful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

FatBoyHK
12-17-2004, 03:02 AM
i really hope, that the *unmentionable* problem will not stuck again on spit14 (or 22, both are fine for me)... if they come I will finally have my second regular ride besides my mustang

Sir.Robin-1337
12-17-2004, 06:58 AM
This will surely be my new ride.

FatBoyHK
12-17-2004, 07:21 AM
Robin, I am surprised that you actually have interest on other planes... but it is a nice surprise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sir.Robin-1337
12-17-2004, 08:05 AM
I am only interested in the best plane. Nothing more. There were many before the Mustang, and there shall be many after.

flyingscampi
12-17-2004, 08:51 AM
Can't imagine many servers having a 1946 plane set http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif