News of our Beloved Spitfire?

[Max_Damage]

Would take lagg 9/10 instead of a spitfire. 23 mm doesnt forgive. Otherwise it makes a very little diffirence if you get shot down in a lagg or a spitfire.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Max_Damage

[BlitzPig_EL]

 it makes a very little diffirence if you get shot down in a lagg or a spitfire.

 

This is the important part.

 

The Luftwaffe will still hold a significant qualitative edge in fighters in BoK.

I have no reason to think that the dominance of the German aircraft types will be in any way in jeopardy with the introduction of the Spitfire or P39.

[Mac_Messer]

I'm not sure I agree with that line of reasoning HerrMurf.

 

Try to imagine, if someone had made calls for the MiG-3 to be modelled with the AM-38 engine, so that it would perform better, get better reviews and more people would fly it. LW pilot's heads would've been exploding all over the forums and cries of "dev's bias" would be everywhere (and in this case it would actually be justified)

 

Numbers do matter, at least to an extent.

BoK should feature the most common V in that theatre of operations, it is obvious. And maybe throw in a boost performance field mod that would give servers some options. But not just for the sake of better sales, that is a bad approach.

[Mac_Messer]

This is the important part.

 

The Luftwaffe will still hold a significant qualitative edge in fighters in BoK.

I have no reason to think that the dominance of the German aircraft types will be in any way in jeopardy with the introduction of the Spitfire or P39.

I await those aircraft becuase they introduce a little different style of flying and DFing. You get Yaks and LaGGs most of the time, but the fights when they`re mixed with La5Fs, Vs and P39s are the most interesting.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

You don't have to like my line of reasoning but the reality is both aircraft were there, the better AC will be more fun to the average user, Western consumers are legion to this AC and it would be a major selling point in an under-tapped market, and 1C/777 is a business. For all of those reasons I hope we get the best Spit V, performance wise, we can. Good reviews and the infusion of Western Allied AC have a real chance to drive sales and secure new content moving forward.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I agree with both Mac_Messer and HerrMurf on this.

 

There will be new challenges for both sides with the entry of these two Allied aircraft into the sim.

 

Even though I am wary of how the P39 will perform, I am still drawn to it because it was the first fighter that I specialized in, and actually had a degree of mastery of, in original IL2 with my original squad, AKA Wardogs.

The other guys in AKA at that time flew 109s, or Laggs, and while I had a degree of competence in the 109, the Lagg 3 never really worked for me, so I started flying the P39 N1 and found a comfortable place for myself.

 

I hope the P39L will be a good office for me as well.

[A_radek]

I wonder what Max divespeed would be for the p39L. Any manual around?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

"The maximum permissible diving speed is 523 miles per hour (842 km/h). 475 mph (764 km/h) is the maximum recommended indicated air speed"

 

 

Manual here: https://es.scribd.com/document/61806618/Pilot-Flight-Manual-for-the-P-39K-L

 

 

[A_radek]

"The maximum permissible diving speed is 523 miles per hour (842 km/h). 475 mph (764 km/h) is the maximum recommended indicated air speed"

 

 

Manual here: https://es.scribd.com/document/61806618/Pilot-Flight-Manual-for-the-P-39K-L

Thank you.

[Scojo]

Technically the Series 127 is more of a Kuban timeline aircraft than Stalingrad so servers have added it but probably the reason why they are keeping it limited.

 

Kuban scenarios I expect it to be fully available and it'll fit in extremely well with the other types of that time period.

But weren't the upgrads for the Yak-1 implemented in 1942? This puts the Yak-1b right on top of BoS, or did they not have very many Yak-1s with the upgrades manufactured in time for that part of the war?

[ShamrockOneFive]

But weren't the upgrads for the Yak-1 implemented in 1942? This puts the Yak-1b right on top of BoS, or did they not have very many Yak-1s with the upgrades manufactured in time for that part of the war?

 

The Soviet aircraft industry in World War II produced everything in small batches so it gets confusing but our Yak-1B is a slightly later series Yak-1B whereas the

initial versions operating over Stalingrad belong to an earlier series. We've got a Yak-1 Series 69 and a Yak-1 Series 127 (Yak-1B added to the naming convention later) and the earliest bubble canopy version I believe is the Yak-1 Series 99. In Soviet nomenclature they just kept producing Yak-1 fighters with different series versions where an engine would change here, a different canopy there, aerodynamic refinements somewhere else and a more efficient propeller somewhere else.

 

Initially I had thought that the Yak-1B we were getting would be a Stalingrad one still suitable for Kuban but its more of a Kuban model that is semi-suitable to Stalingrad. I'm guessing this is why its restricted in MP servers running late Stalingrad scenarios. I'd fully expect them to be available in large numbers for Kuban scenarios.

[Bullets]

cough cough                                        

[unreasonable]

It will be years before you get a Mk.IX in this sim, sadly.  I very much doubt I will live to see it.

[Scojo]

The Soviet aircraft industry in World War II produced everything in small batches so it gets confusing but our Yak-1B is a slightly later series Yak-1B whereas the

initial versions operating over Stalingrad belong to an earlier series. We've got a Yak-1 Series 69 and a Yak-1 Series 127 (Yak-1B added to the naming convention later) and the earliest bubble canopy version I believe is the Yak-1 Series 99. In Soviet nomenclature they just kept producing Yak-1 fighters with different series versions where an engine would change here, a different canopy there, aerodynamic refinements somewhere else and a more efficient propeller somewhere else.

 

Initially I had thought that the Yak-1B we were getting would be a Stalingrad one still suitable for Kuban but its more of a Kuban model that is semi-suitable to Stalingrad. I'm guessing this is why its restricted in MP servers running late Stalingrad scenarios. I'd fully expect them to be available in large numbers for Kuban scenarios.

Did the FW-190 A5 get to the front before the game's version of the Yak-1B?

[Finkeren]

Did the FW-190 A5 get to the front before the game's version of the Yak-1B?

Depends which front you're talking about. For Kuban it's fairly safe to assume that both were in service for the timeframe we have.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It will be years before you get a Mk.IX in this sim, sadly.  I very much doubt I will live to see it.

Goodness, I hope you don't perish in the next five to six years. I rather like most of your posts and arguments...........................

 

  ;)  

[Mac_Messer]

You don't have to like my line of reasoning but the reality is both aircraft were there, the better AC will be more fun to the average user, Western consumers are legion to this AC and it would be a major selling point in an under-tapped market, and 1C/777 is a business. For all of those reasons I hope we get the best Spit V, performance wise, we can. Good reviews and the infusion of Western Allied AC have a real chance to drive sales and secure new content moving forward.

Sure it`s business but if you`re right about the fans then why didn`t the devs introduce Pacific/Normandy rightaway, as the 2nd game?

 

I was talking about a bit different pov, which is server restrictions. If the V ends up being too powerful it will get restricted server wise in df servers and surely in coops, if we ever get the feature. That is why I was saying that the most widely used version would be just right, since the main advantages of the Spitfire weren`t speed or horizontal turning, rather easiness and predictable behavior even on the edge of performance envelope.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Did the FW-190 A5 get to the front before the game's version of the Yak-1B?

 

Tough to find in-service dates for either of these aircraft but both would be appropriate in the Spring 1943 time period for the Kuban.

[unreasonable]

Goodness, I hope you don't perish in the next five to six years. I rather like most of your posts and arguments...........................

 

  ;)  

 

That is kind of you to say - I hope you enjoyed my little movie as well.  I am certainly not planning to kick the bucket that soon although there are no guarantees, but my expected timescale for a Spitfire IX is nearer twenty years than five or six.

 

But we shall see... or not.. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Sure it`s business but if you`re right about the fans then why didn`t the devs introduce Pacific/Normandy rightaway, as the 2nd game?

 

I was talking about a bit different pov, which is server restrictions. If the V ends up being too powerful it will get restricted server wise in df servers and surely in coops, if we ever get the feature. That is why I was saying that the most widely used version would be just right, since the main advantages of the Spitfire weren`t speed or horizontal turning, rather easiness and predictable behavior even on the edge of performance envelope.

 

The logic that's been used and that seems to fit is that the dev team needs to do a lot of work on the engine to get the ocean tech implemented alongside the ships (AI, weapons, etc.) and then they will need another year to implement carrier tech to the level that they want.

 

There was also desire in some circles to see another East Front setup before heading off somewhere else (we all like our trilogies!)... So Kuban is a good mix of elements of being a scenario that can be used to develop future tech, having Western lend lease aircraft, and being a direct follow on to the Stalingrad campaign and fulfilling the desire to do the East one more time.

 

And really... its about developer time and I'd rather they slowly develop the ocean/ship/carrier tech over the next two years of development time so that they can really do it right. I'm hoping we have a properly implemented LSO for example. I'm not holding my breath for functional elevators but that would be super cool if they could do it.

[Scojo]

I'm not holding my breath for functional elevators but that would be super cool if they could do it.

Maybe after we get our fill of spawning on side deck and getting rammed by those taking off and landing in Multiplayer lol

[ShamrockOneFive]

Maybe after we get our fill of spawning on side deck and getting rammed by those taking off and landing in Multiplayer lol

 

Carrier decks in MP is always a nightmare. I am also curious how they might solve some of those issues too! :D

[Scojo]

Carrier decks in MP is always a nightmare. I am also curious how they might solve some of those issues too! :D

Yeah, it'll be interesting. I'm glad it's not my problem lol... unless I decide to run a server come PTO. I pray it does not come to that lol

[TP_Silk]

I'm kind of assuming that carrier deck ATC is the sort of role that may be farmed out under the new system of having a mission coordinator. Whether they want that job or not may be another question.

[Scojo]

How will the visibility in the Spit be compared to the other VVS planes?

 

If I have a hard time competing with 109s in the sim now, will this plane be hard to get the hang of or provide characteristics that I will like?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It has a bubble but armored glass and a full spine. Probably better than everything except the Yak-1b for visibility.

Edited March 24, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Scojo]

It has a bubble but armored glass and a full spine. Probably better than everything except the Yak-1b for visibility.

Is the bubble large enough for actually looking back, or does it just give your head room so your eyes can look out of the back through the horse shoe glass panel behind you?

Edited March 24, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Cpt_Cool]

I am guessing it will be comparable to the Mig's visibilty

[ShamrockOneFive]

How will the visibility in the Spit be compared to the other VVS planes?

 

If I have a hard time competing with 109s in the sim now, will this plane be hard to get the hang of or provide characteristics that I will like?

 

Depends on what your troubles are with the Bf109s. The Spitfire is a different beast from the 109 and will require some different skills but the 109s, Yaks, LaGGs, Migs, etc. all have quirks that require time to learn and understand. In the old IL-2 I found fighting in the Spitfire V required flying in a very disciplined way and moving the situation into a position where I could use the Spitfires full abilities to corner the enemy and shoot them down. Up until that point I always felt like the enemy was in control. The Spitfire IX had the power to dictate the fight but with the V it was more of an event match right up until the end.

 

Visibility rearward should be good but maybe not Yak-1B bubble canopy good.

[Finkeren]

I am guessing it will be comparable to the Mig's visibilty

The MiG has excellent unobstructed view straight ahead. The Spit has a heavy-framed armoured windscreen.

 

My guess is, that it will be more like flying the La-5 with the armoured windscreen and cockpit open.

 

One thing that will no doubt be an issue is view forward and down. The cockpit is placed relatively far back, so the nose and those enormous wings with a significant dihedral will just make you pretty much blind from 10 to 2 o'clock low. View behind and low will be fine, which is good in a combat scenario, but for navigation the Spit pilot will have to swerve from side to side or dip his nose down constantly in order to see the ground ahead.

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's like that scene in the Battle of Britain movie where the Spitfire pilot is looking around for his flight leader and he's banking left and right trying to see him. You'll probably see a lot of that from Spit pilots.

Edited March 25, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[novicebutdeadly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkFkwLNucyM

From about 2:40 onwards ;-)

[ITAF_Rani]

Need this food...ehm plane !!

Edited April 3, 2017 by ITAF_Rani

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I kind of wish that we could get more than one wing variant of it. I know Va wasn't a common thing, but nevertheless, having those eight .303 Brownings would be interesting. I always liked the animation, sound and the way they worked in Cliffs of Dover. Shouldn't also be a big model change to make more than one wing type. But that's only a my wish. Either way, I just cant wait to try it out. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

I kind of wish that we could get more than one wing variant of it. I know Va wasn't a common thing, but nevertheless, having those eight .303 Brownings would be interesting. I always liked the animation, sound and the way they worked in Cliffs of Dover. Shouldn't also be a big model change to make more than one wing type. But that's only a my wish. Either way, I just cant wait to try it out. 

 

The Mark V I think wins for the greatest variety of wing/armament types in the Spitfire series doesn't it? A few were fitted with A-type wings though I believe them all to have been modified from Mark IIs to V standard. Quite a large number were fitted with B and C type wings and then both of those types had clipped variants. I think an early high altitude derivative may have even had the first extended wing (though technically not a Mark V at that point).

 

It'd be interesting to get other types but historically speaking the Russians had only the Mark Vb with B-type wings. No clipped versions either. The C-type wing would be a welcome addition too.

[seafireliv]

I wonder what the P-39 will be like to fly in this sim? It wasn`t too bad in IL2 and I loved it`s slow cannon... Although that could be another type.

 

Anyway, the Spitfire is the one I`m really looking forward to and I`ll make it great to fly! How predictable of a Brit!

[Guest deleted@30725]

The MiG has excellent unobstructed view straight ahead. The Spit has a heavy-framed armoured windscreen.

 

My guess is, that it will be more like flying the La-5 with the armoured windscreen and cockpit open.

 

One thing that will no doubt be an issue is view forward and down. The cockpit is placed relatively far back, so the nose and those enormous wings with a significant dihedral will just make you pretty much blind from 10 to 2 o'clock low. View behind and low will be fine, which is good in a combat scenario, but for navigation the Spit pilot will have to swerve from side to side or dip his nose down constantly in order to see the ground ahead.

 

So if I see them doing this on a Friday night they're not drunk, they're just trying to see out of their planes

[ShamrockOneFive]

I wonder what the P-39 will be like to fly in this sim? It wasn`t too bad in IL2 and I loved it`s slow cannon... Although that could be another type.

 

Anyway, the Spitfire is the one I`m really looking forward to and I`ll make it great to fly! How predictable of a Brit!

Most P-39s had a M4 37mm cannon in the nose. Some earlier models had a Hispano 20mm.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

The Mark V I think wins for the greatest variety of wing/armament types in the Spitfire series doesn't it? A few were fitted with A-type wings though I believe them all to have been modified from Mark IIs to V standard. Quite a large number were fitted with B and C type wings and then both of those types had clipped variants. I think an early high altitude derivative may have even had the first extended wing (though technically not a Mark V at that point).

 

It'd be interesting to get other types but historically speaking the Russians had only the Mark Vb with B-type wings. No clipped versions either. The C-type wing would be a welcome addition too.

To be fair, we have as an upgrade gunpods for Mc.202 which to my knowledge never became adopted and remained a prototype concept. And there are few other things like that. Giving more options is in my opinion always good, just a matter if there are resources for such options, but for the purpose of campaign it;s not a big deal. Such option could simply be locked, while in multiplayer it doesnt really matter since everyone flies the way he wants. 

 

In regard to C-type, plenty of Spitfire Vc's with Merlin 46 were shipped to Australia around that time so it might be worth researching details of those as well. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

To be fair, we have as an upgrade gunpods for Mc.202 which to my knowledge never became adopted and remained a prototype concept. And there are few other things like that. Giving more options is in my opinion always good, just a matter if there are resources for such options, but for the purpose of campaign it;s not a big deal. Such option could simply be locked, while in multiplayer it doesnt really matter since everyone flies the way he wants. 

 

In regard to C-type, plenty of Spitfire Vc's with Merlin 46 were shipped to Australia around that time so it might be worth researching details of those as well. 

 

Fair point! I'd be ok with a C-type Spitfire V showing up then