How many Spitfires IX will we have?

[LUZITANO]

Hello everyone

 

10 airplanes per battle, is a small number. But it comforts me to know that we have the option of adding late modifications, which eventually create sub variants of some airplanes

Example: LA-5 with late engine becomes La-5F

 

Now, on the Spitfires ... I hope (I have a lot of desire) that they put options of modifications in the engine (25lb version), later carburator intake,  clipted wings and pointed rudder

 

Spitfire LF IXe

Boost of 25lb ......................(   )

AeroVee  Air intake.............(   )

Pointed rudder....................(   )

(CW) Clipted Wings............(   )

Spoiler

 

Spitfire LF IXe

Boost of 25lb .....................( x)

AeroVee  Air intake.............( x)

Pointed rudder....................( x)

(CW) Clipted Wings............(   )

Spoiler

 

I think it is important to have the esthetic option of changing the rudder, being able to choose rounded or pointed

The amount of variants that Spitfire IX has is huge, I hope we can customize some of those subvariants, it makes things more practical

 

[Royal_Flight]

The 25lbs boost should definitely be in there. 

The mod I most want to see as an option is the clipped wing version. Increased roll rate and designed for low-altitude combat, it should be a good fit for the sort of use it'll get in Bodenplatte. 

[Guest deleted@50488]

I WANT THIS, and the 109 K4 SO BADLY !!!!!!! GIVE ME MAAAAANYYYY !!!!!!!!

[EAF19_Marsh]

I'd like a Mod that turns it into a Mk. VIII, but obviously not going to happen.

[Royal_Flight]

38 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I'd like a Mod that turns it into a Mk. VIII, but obviously not going to happen.

 

If we're playing that game, I'd like a mod for the Vb that turns it into a Seafire LF III and adds an Illustrious-class carrier...

I'll keep dreaming. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

If we're playing that game, I'd like a mod for the Vb that turns it into a Seafire LF III and adds an Illustrious-class carrier...

I'll keep dreaming. 

 

No, an VIII is far more important...

 

So far mods have been mostly internal rather than external elements, so not sure how likely the tail and wing changes might be in its first iteration.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I can see the Mark II GGS gyro sight possibly being an option and the clipped wings maybe a well. The rounded tail I doubt... We're looking at a fall to winter 1944/1945 Spitfire IX and I don't see many photos of the older tail in use by then.

[HBPencil]

@ OP, you might want to read this thread although you may have to skim through several pages of people bickering about 150 octane fuel and Me109 production :

 

2 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

No, an VIII is far more important...

 

So far mods have been mostly internal rather than external elements, so not sure how likely the tail and wing changes might be in its first iteration.

I'm not sure I follow you, the VIII didn't see service over NW Europe so certainly wasn't present during Bodenplatte... neither was the Seafire III of course although they were around for ops over Norway and the Normandy invasion.

[sevenless]

Spitfire Mk XIV makes more sense for the north-west ETO 44/45 scenario IMHO. Would make a nice collectors plane with distinct characteristics like its Griffon engine. IIRC 2nd TAC Air had 6 Squadrons operational by Dec 44 in France and Belgium.

 

Found some nice Infos here:

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

Edited March 19, 2018 by sevenless
infos on performance and ops in NWE

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

I'm not sure I follow you, the VIII didn't see service over NW Europe so certainly wasn't present during Bodenplatte... neither was the Seafire III of course although they were around for ops over Norway and the Normandy invasion.

 

 

You are quite correct; it was meant tongue-in-cheek.

[Royal_Flight]

3 hours ago, HBPencil said:

@ OP, you might want to read this thread although you may have to skim through several pages of people bickering about 150 octane fuel and Me109 production :

 

I'm not sure I follow you, the VIII didn't see service over NW Europe so certainly wasn't present during Bodenplatte... neither was the Seafire III of course although they were around for ops over Norway and the Normandy invasion.

 

The Seafire isn't period-appropriate at all, but I'm just desperate to see it.

 I'm not really expecting to see any Fleet Air Arm aircraft in BoX, but they're what I'd most like to get to fly someday. 

[HBPencil]

11 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

 

You are quite correct; it was meant tongue-in-cheek.

Ahhhh, I see, sorry I didn't catch the tone.

[EAF19_Marsh]

7 hours ago, HBPencil said:

Ahhhh, I see, sorry I didn't catch the tone.

 

My bad; poor tone on my part 

 

I do love the VIII, though...

[Panthera]

Keep in mind the rudder wasn't there just for aesthetic reasons, the larger pointed rudder noticably improved directional stability which wasn't that great on the previous versions, so changing this ingame should also have quite an impact on flight behavior. The even larger rudder on the Mk.XIV improved stability in flight even further, but it was there primarily because it was absolutely necessary in order for full power take offs even being a possibility.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Panthera

[EAF19_Marsh]

The pointy tail became fairly standard on late-built  ‘44 IXs, but not as universal as the tall tail on the later 109s.

 

Would rather have the clipped wing option, personally.

[Panthera]

I hope we get the pointy tail and 25 lbs boost, would seem the most appropiate IMHO. Would love the bubble canopy as a mod too.

[LUZITANO]

On 19/03/2018 at 3:07 AM, jcomm-in-combat said:

GIVE ME MAAAAANYYYY !!!!!!!!

I'll keep this thought

You know what, folks? I Love the Spitfire

 

I just love that sweet thing
 

Following the logic of La-5 and grouping the Spitfires by the type of wing, I was able to add only with models that were produced in large quantities (over a thousand), I managed to count at least 6 variants to the V version, plus 7 variants until the XIV version and 2 variants of the Seafire version

 

Therefore, the number of Spitfires that can be produced separating only by model and wing type reaches 15 aircraft, an extremely high number

Now ... if we can apply modifications and create sub variants, then we will have to include more aircraft in the simulator in a practical way

This LX IXe variant can be

Spoiler

 

Spitfire LF IXe

Spitfire LF IXe 25lb

Spitfire LF IXe (CW)

Spitfire LF IXe 25lb (CW) 
*But not the high atl variant, because this type have larger wings, is a different model

 

 

I do not know if it is possible to cut the wings of the Vb version, I do not have the Kuban pack yet, but ... if they implement these options and the option to change engines and use high octane gasoline, then we will have more options

list separated by style and wing

Spoiler

 

Spitfire Mk Ia

Spitfire Mk IIa
Spitfire Mk IIb

Spitfire Mk Vb

Spitfire Mk Vb (trop)

Spitfire Mk Vc (trop)

Spitfire Mk VIIIc

Spitfire Mk IXc

Spitfire Mk IXe

Spitfire IXe HF

Spitfire XIVc

Spitfire XIVe

Spitfire XVIe
Seafire Mk IIc

Seafire Mk IIIc

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by LUZITANO

[EAF19_Marsh]

In terms of mods probably easiest to hardest / least to most work:

- Different boost settings (18lbs vs 25lbs)

- E Wing armament (2 x .5s vs. 4 x .303s)

- Gyro gun-sight (thought probably a new work package in its own right)

 

Then getting more difficult:

- Late tail

- Clipped wing

- Bubble canopy

 

I would expect the first 2, maybe the 3rd but the second group might be part of a subsequent final release as they involve both graphical changes and impact on the FM. I would expect it makes more sense to release a standard Mk. IX, then move onto other aircraft, then - if deemed worthwhile - release an update for Mk. IX mods (could even call it a XVI) when a lot more of the key work is done.

 

My 2 pence, anyhoo.

[Panthera]

How many of the IX's had the enlarged tail by late 44? If it was the majority they might as well just go with that as std. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

How many of the IX's had the enlarged tail by late 44? If it was the majority they might as well just go with that as std. 

 

I would have to look this up, but the production line had started to switch towards the Mk VIIIs and then XIVs in 1943, while you have late tail IXs (basically XVIs) in service by the end of '44 and '45, but exact production is complicated by the whole IV / XVI confusion and the lack of real demarcation (the XVI only received a separate designation around August).

 

See this article for discussion of the 'E' WIng. Though not stated, you can probably align the tail tail roughly with this time-frame, so the first are received in useful numbers some time in the summer of '44 but they do not arrive in quantity before Autumn and even then were very mixed with the older models.

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html

[D3adCZE]

On 3/22/2018 at 4:56 AM, LUZITANO said:

snip

Welcome to the grown up sim mate. I am looking forward meeting you up in the sky again.

 

Now as I am a 109 fanboy, I would definitely like as many spits as possible. Not only to fly them(to learn their weaknesses) but to shoot them down. 

Edited March 23, 2018 by CSAF-D3adCZE

[LUZITANO]

1 hour ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

Welcome to the grown up sim mate. I am looking forward meeting you up in the sky again.

 

Now as I am a 109 fanboy, I would definitely like as mane spits as possible. Not only to fly them(to learn their weaknesses) but to shoot them down. 

I played IL-2 for over 10 years
I was a "Spit vs 109" server rat

Good to see familiar names

[Royal_Flight]

On 22/03/2018 at 3:56 AM, LUZITANO said:

I'll keep this thought

You know what, folks? I Love the Spitfire

 

I just love that sweet thing
 

Following the logic of La-5 and grouping the Spitfires by the type of wing, I was able to add only with models that were produced in large quantities (over a thousand), I managed to count at least 6 variants to the V version, plus 7 variants until the XIV version and 2 variants of the Seafire version

 

Therefore, the number of Spitfires that can be produced separating only by model and wing type reaches 15 aircraft, an extremely high number

Now ... if we can apply modifications and create sub variants, then we will have to include more aircraft in the simulator in a practical way

This LX IXe variant can be

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Spitfire LF IXe

Spitfire LF IXe 25lb

Spitfire LF IXe (CW)

Spitfire LF IXe 25lb (CW) 
*But not the high atl variant, because this type have larger wings, is a different model

 

 

I do not know if it is possible to cut the wings of the Vb version, I do not have the Kuban pack yet, but ... if they implement these options and the option to change engines and use high octane gasoline, then we will have more options

list separated by style and wing

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Spitfire Mk Ia

Spitfire Mk IIa
Spitfire Mk IIb

Spitfire Mk Vb

Spitfire Mk Vb (trop)

Spitfire Mk Vc (trop)

Spitfire Mk VIIIc

Spitfire Mk IXc

Spitfire Mk IXe

Spitfire IXe HF

Spitfire XIVc

Spitfire XIVe

Spitfire XVIe
Seafire Mk IIc

Seafire Mk IIIc

 

 

There were more than just two versions of the Merlin-powered Seafire, and this isn't counting all the Griffon variants.

 

The Seafire F IIc was a 'navalised' version of the Spitfire Vc, with the same Merlin 46 we have in the BoX Vb but driving a four-bladed prop, and with arrestor gear, cockpit instruments in nautical miles and the C wing with twin Hispanos.

The FR (fighter-reconnaissance) IIc added cameras and the L IIc had a low-altitude variant of the Merlin.

 

This model is the closest to the Spit Vb we already have in BoX. 

 

The most produced model was the Seafire III which again came in F, FR and LF versions like the IIc.

There was no such thing as the 'Seafire IIIc', the mk III used the B wing with one Hispano and two .303 Brownings each side, and also contained extra fuel. This was the first Seafire variant to have folding wings as well.

It also had a strengthened airframe and used higher-power Merlins, with the LF III again using a low-altitude version. 

The mk III could also carry 250lb bombs and drop tanks. 

 

The next version was the Griffon-engined Seafire XV (the number changed as it was produced after the Spitfire XIV), which drove a five-bladed prop with a massive spinner, and a taller, pointed rudder like the Spitfire VIII. This is probably the best looking version, at least in my opinion, with the brutalist function-over-form aesthetic of the best naval aircraft. 

 

I'd be happy to see any of the above in BoX, although the LF III would be the most representative in terms of numbers. The IIc is closest to the Vb we have already but would be the lowest-performing.

Depends where we might see them, a late Pacific setting would need a XV while the LF III would be obligatory for an Italian theatre. 

[LUZITANO]

2 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

There were more than just two versions of the Merlin-powered Seafire, and this isn't counting all the Griffon variants.

 

The Seafire F IIc was a 'navalised' version of the Spitfire Vc, with the same Merlin 46 we have in the BoX Vb but driving a four-bladed prop, and with arrestor gear, cockpit instruments in nautical miles and the C wing with twin Hispanos.

The FR (fighter-reconnaissance) IIc added cameras and the L IIc had a low-altitude variant of the Merlin.

 

This model is the closest to the Spit Vb we already have in BoX. 

 

The most produced model was the Seafire III which again came in F, FR and LF versions like the IIc.

There was no such thing as the 'Seafire IIIc', the mk III used the B wing with one Hispano and two .303 Brownings each side, and also contained extra fuel. This was the first Seafire variant to have folding wings as well.

It also had a strengthened airframe and used higher-power Merlins, with the LF III again using a low-altitude version. 

The mk III could also carry 250lb bombs and drop tanks. 

 

The next version was the Griffon-engined Seafire XV (the number changed as it was produced after the Spitfire XIV), which drove a five-bladed prop with a massive spinner, and a taller, pointed rudder like the Spitfire VIII. This is probably the best looking version, at least in my opinion, with the brutalist function-over-form aesthetic of the best naval aircraft. 

 

I'd be happy to see any of the above in BoX, although the LF III would be the most representative in terms of numbers. The IIc is closest to the Vb we have already but would be the lowest-performing.

Depends where we might see them, a late Pacific setting would need a XV while the LF III would be obligatory for an Italian theatre. 

You understood that I grouped only the most produced variants by type of wing and not by engine type or modifications like cameras, right?

 

[Royal_Flight]

22 minutes ago, LUZITANO said:

You understood that I grouped only the most produced variants by type of wing and not by engine type or modifications like cameras, right?

 

 

I'm not sure that I do understand what you mean. 

There was no Seafire IIIc, that designation was never in use.

The Seafire mk III used a different wing design, based on the B wing with room for more fuel and with break points for wing folding, and it could carry bombs.

 

All the Seafires ended up quite different from the land-based Spitfires and as development went on they diverged ever further.

But regarding engines and cameras, that was what gave the Seafires their designations as fulfilling different roles with the same airframe was more important to the FAA operating from carriers with a limited inventory than to the RAF flying Spitfires from shared airfields on land. 

 

 

We're in agreement, I definitely want to see more Spitfires in the sim and I'm happy to be getting the mk IX in BoBo to join the Vb from BoK.

With the E wing ('universal wing') I'm hoping we'll get a choice of 2x20mm & 4x.303 or 2x20mm & 2x.50.  

I've wanted a Seafire for ages as well but I don't expect to see it for a while. 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Royal_Flight

[HBPencil]

In regards to the rudder, both the rounded and pointed types  were there on the IX at he tie of BoBP. Judging by photos it looked like a fairly even mix. The pointed rudder gave better directional stability and rudder authority on the takeoff run but had no effect on outright performance so I don't think it'll matter too much which one we get.

 

On 3/20/2018 at 9:56 PM, EAF19_Marsh said:

My bad; poor tone on my part 

I do love the VIII, though...

No worries mate
I too have a soft spot for the VIII, I skinned the hell out of it in '46 and Jeffry Quill stated it was, for him, the most pleasant Spit to fly (but the prototype XII being the most fun).

@Royal_Flight, please don't think I'm having a go at you but I feel some of your statements deserve some debate:

3 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

The Seafire F IIc was a 'navalised' version of the Spitfire Vc, with the same Merlin 46 we have in the BoX Vb but driving a four-bladed prop

 

the mk III used the B wing with one Hispano and two .303 Brownings each side

The mk III could also carry 250lb bombs and drop tanks. 

 

Depends where we might see them, a late Pacific setting would need a XV while the LF III would be obligatory for an Italian theatre. 

- The Seafire II only had a 4 bladed prop if powered by the Merlin 32 or 55, those with the 45 or 46 had the same Rotol 3 bladed prop as the Spitfire V.
- The folding wing was a rework of the C wing, not the B.
Unfortunately there's some confusion about Spitfire wings, a lot of which seems to stem from people, both past and present, using the B to describe the armament rather than the wing construction. This is understandable of course as the number and caliber of the guns is the same between the B wing and standard C wing armament, but it does lead to people getting confused... and that's without figuring on those designation misnomers that real pitfalls for the unwary (i.e. IXA, IXB and IIC)
- Just some extra info, in addition to the 250lb bombs and slipper tanks the Seafire III could also carry a 500lber, up to 12x30lbers, 4xRPs, smoke floats and a MkVIII mine. SFAIK most of those weren't used in combat.
- The XV wasn't in time to see combat in the PTO and I believe the II would be a better fit for the Italian campaign, it being the only type at Salerno for example.

 

30 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

With the E wing ('universal wing') I'm hoping we'll get a choice of 2x20mm & 4x.303 or 2x20mm & 2x.50. 

The C wing was the 'universal wing'. The C wing could carry 3 different gun configurations, hence the term 'universal'. The E wing was reworked C but it wasn't universal because if one wanted to fit anything other the E armament one would have to convert it back to a C wing first... and in late production IX/XVIs with the bubble top and rear fuel tanks that wouldn't be possible as the mg bays were being used for equipment displaced from behind the cockpit.

[LUZITANO]

On 23/03/2018 at 1:33 PM, Royal_Flight said:

There was no such thing as the 'Seafire IIIc'

I know. This designation I totally made up
I assumed that the Spitfire Mk III used armament c, with the guns capable of carrying 120 grenades

 

I know that the Mk II version is similar to the Spit V trop and that the Mk III version was the last used operationally during World War II and that it had 2 engine variants

Anyway ... it's a lot of spitfires. It would be impractical to launch so many variants separately, creating subvariants through modifications is exactly the story of Spitfire. The plane was going through minor changes during production, creating this huge variety of options

 

(Sub Tópic) How many Spitfires Vb can we have?

Spoiler

 

I do not have Spitfire Vb, but I do not think he has the option to cut his wings, right? With this option and the option to switch to a low-altitude engine, it could be (just like the glorious IL-21946)

Spitfire F Vb
Spitfire LF Vb Merlin 45M
Spitfire LF Vb (CW) *

The Trop and Seafire variant separately
 
* Clipped Wings

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Overview of wing types given here:

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html

[blockheadgreen_]

Surely it would have made more sense to depict the Spitfire F. XVI instead? I mean, the two aircraft are identical, sans engine and tooling, but the F. XVI was the most numerous air-superiority fighter within 2TAF at the time. I think anyway, I'll have to check later on. 

 

Besides, I'd honestly prefer to see a bubble-top Spitfire depicted, as there is no decent (modern) simulation of a bubble-top Spit on any storefront asides from an XVI for FSX. Despite the fact the bubble-top XVI was introduced in February of 45, it's only a month out  Not to mention the fact that DCS has the high-back IX covered, as does the old IL-2. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, Lythronax said:

Surely it would have made more sense to depict the Spitfire F. XVI instead? I mean, the two aircraft are identical, sans engine and tooling, but the F. XVI was the most numerous air-superiority fighter within 2TAF at the time. I think anyway, I'll have to check later on. 

 

Besides, I'd honestly prefer to see a bubble-top Spitfire depicted, as there is no decent (modern) simulation of a bubble-top Spit on any storefront asides from an XVI for FSX. Despite the fact the bubble-top XVI was introduced in February of 45, it's only a month out  Not to mention the fact that DCS has the high-back IX covered, as does the old IL-2. 

 

Depends on the time. At the beginning of the time that it looks like they are choosing to represent (September 1944 through March 1943) the Spitfire LF.IX is the most numerous. As time goes on the Mark XVI becomes more numerous. Right at the end the bubble canopies even start to show up.

 

Really the IX and XVI are virtually indistinguishable minus a few small bumps on the engine cowling.

 

We know we're getting a Spitfire LF.IXe, it'll almost certainly have a pointed tail, clipped wings might be a thing, and it could have some other features like 25lbs boost and the Mark II GGS gyro gunsight (which started showing up as early as April 1944 on Mark IXs). Hopefully we'll see some dev updates soon and that will reveal further details.

[HBPencil]

6 hours ago, Lythronax said:

F. XVI was the most numerous air-superiority fighter within 2TAF at the time.

Not to mention the fact that DCS has the high-back IX covered

Afraid not, the LF.IX was the most numerous type with the 2nd TAF at the time of Bodenplatte (this has been covered in other threads, I forget which).
I agree that a modern take on the bubble top would be nice but would it be fair to say that DCS has the high-back covered? I've never played DCS so my opinion ain't worth jack but looking at screenshots of their Mk IX it looks like they based their model on a modern restoration rather than creating a period correct type. If the 3D model details aren't correct for the period then it perhaps also raises questions about the accuracy of the flight model? I'm not the type who gets wound-up about FM accuracy but there are plenty around here who do .
I guess what I'm saying is, there's scope for the devs to make a detailed and accurate Mk IX high-back.

[Talisman]

The first test of the aircraft was in intercepting V1 flying bombs and the Mk XIV was the most successful of all Spitfire marks in this role. When 150 octane fuel was introduced in mid-1944 the "boost" of the Griffon engine was able to be increased to +25 lbs (80.7"), allowing the top speed to be increased by about 30 mph (26 kn; 48 km/h) to 400 mph (350 kn; 640 km/h) at 2,000 ft (610 m).^[32]

The Mk XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.^[33]

 

^{Happy landings,}

^Talisman

[blockheadgreen_]

15 hours ago, HBPencil said:

I agree that a modern take on the bubble top would be nice but would it be fair to say that DCS has the high-back covered? I've never played DCS so my opinion ain't worth jack but looking at screenshots of their Mk IX it looks like they based their model on a modern restoration rather than creating a period correct type. If the 3D model details aren't correct for the period then it perhaps also raises questions about the accuracy of the flight model? I'm not the type who gets wound-up about FM accuracy but there are plenty around here who do .
I guess what I'm saying is, there's scope for the devs to make a detailed and accurate Mk IX high-back.

Having owned the DCS IX since release day and flown it extensively, it is far and away the closest I will ever come to flying the real thing. It’s FM was advised and tuned by real Spitfire pilots who are partners of Eagle Dynamics, and from their comments on how it flies it seems to be the “Mutt’s nuts” to quote one of them.

 

Although they worked with the Old Flying Machine company and their IX, MH434, to make their 3D model, the various modifications made to the real plane were reversed (such as an outboard cannon port, correct radio and IFF equipment). Essentially they digitally restored a modern Spitfire to period standard, and it’s the most realistic we'll likely ever see. We don’t really need another high back, but I can live with it because it will be beyond beautiful as well.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Lythronax

[Poochnboo]

Well, saying that WE don't need another high back Spitfire MK9 is being quite presumptuous. I don't own the DCS Spitfire, so I would actually lke to have the high back 9. It's the version of the Spit that I think of when I imagine what a Spitfire looks like. Also the most numerous, anyway. 

 To be honest, I'd like to own that model. It's beautiful. But 60 bucks? For one airplane? Just can't do it. So, the IL-2 version is going to have to be my Spitfire.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The DCS version is a much more in-depth study level aircraft. Some folks want that kind of detail but you end up paying for it. IL-2 offers a few simplifications (although very few) to get us a more cohesive package.

 

I wouldn't be worried too much about what the other sim is doing so far as picking planes is concerned. We should have a Spitfire IX that best represents the time period. The bubbletop as a default wouldn't be right as those were more March and April 1945. I'd love to see it as a mod if it were possible and within scope.

[Art-J]

^ Ditto. I own and like DCS Spit very much, but what does it have to do with anything here? Using this logic, there should be no Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning and K-4 in BoBP, as they've all been done in P3D or DCS :D.

 

If high-back fits the Bodenplatte scenario, so be it.

[HBPencil]

8 hours ago, Lythronax said:

Having owened the DCS IX since release day and flown it extensively, it is far and away the closest I will ever come to flying the real thing. It’s FM was advised and tuned by real Spitfire pilots who are partners of Eagle Dynamics, and from their comments on how it flies it seems to be the “Mutt’s nuts” to quote one of them.

 

Although they worked with the Old Flying Machine company and their IX, MH434, to make their 3D model, the various modifications made to the real plane were reversed (such as an outboard cannon port, correct radio and IFF equipment). Essentially they digitally restored a modern Spitfire to period standard, and it’s the most realistic we'll likely ever see. We don’t really need another high back, but I can live with it because it will be beyond beautiful as well.

That's good to know, 'tis nice to hear that the FM is the "mutt's nuts" and those who fly it do enjoy it
I'm going to quietly stand by my assertion that the 3D model is historically inaccurate. I know, I'm sounding like just another know-it-all armchair expert a-hole on the inter-webz!

P.S. I hadn't noticed you're new here, welcome to the forums!

[LUZITANO]

At least the Axis pilots will have nothing to complain about, since the 109K-4 is much better 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by LUZITANO

[Rolling_Thunder]

7 hours ago, LUZITANO said:

At least the Axis pilots will have nothing to complain about, since the 109K-4 is much better 

 

 

Heh, i wouldn't bet on that.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Doctrine

Training

Pilot Skill

Tactical Situation

AIrcraft

 

You can reposition the first 3 - 4 for actual engagements or sims, but the fact is that pure aircraft performance tends to be one of the lowest ranking factors in success or failure within a given class or generation or fighters. As long as one aircraft is not too far above or below another in terms of performance, other factors tends to have a greater impact on success or failure.