Spit mk IX

[Flynco]

Thank The best money spent in my life 

[senseispcc]

Yep, happy about it also…

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's a great flying bird, and a great looker too...

 

 

Excellent guns as well.

Edited May 24, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[ShamrockOneFive]

Absolutely great looking aircraft and a really pleasure to have the Mark IX in the sim!

 

[Finkeren]

By far the prettiest Spitfire, though that’s not saying much

[dburne]

13 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

By far the prettiest Spitfire, though that’s not saying much

 

Watch it now!

 

?

[seafireliv]

56 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's a great flying bird, and a great looker too...

 

 

Excellent guns as well.

She always was a looker.

[Rjel]

With the pointy tail it's in the top three of best looking planes for me in the sim so far. Give it the rounded Mk.V tail and it's the best.

[No601_Swallow]

52 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

By far the prettiest Spitfire, though that’s not saying much

 

Sic balls.

 

 

[Jade_Monkey]

I was pleasantly surprised when i saw we have the version with 50 cals.

 

Im no expert but i could have sworn i read many mk ix still had 4x.303 mgs.

[-332FG-Hank_DG]

1 hour ago, No601_Swallow said:

 

Sic balls.

 

 

 

Oh man my childhood movie...... Chopper, sic balls! Good one for the new spit!!!

[LUZITANO]

Spitfire LF IXe 25lb 18lb with the option to use the M.70 engine for high altitudes

yes, this is love ?

Edited May 26, 2018 by LUZITANO

[MeoW.Scharfi]

11 minutes ago, LUZITANO said:

Spitfire LF IXe 25lb with the option to use the M.70 engine for high altitudes

yes, this is love

 

I thought it has 18lb and not 25lb. Correct me if i am wrong.

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's +18lbs boost on the engine. No +25lb available (yet anyways).

[Danziger]

I wasn't expecting to like the IX. I was all hyped for the V and then... meh...

 

I really like the IX though. With all the different modifications it's pretty versatile. 

 

Need some 4k skins for it.

[CisTer-dB-]

We have the  Mk IXe HF and Mk IXe LF both with 18lb boost

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by ATAG_dB

[ATA_Vasilij]

Lovely looking plane... mostly with the short wings. Gorgeous!

 

 

[E69_geramos109]

5 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I was pleasantly surprised when i saw we have the version with 50 cals.

 

Im no expert but i could have sworn i read many mk ix still had 4x.303 mgs.

Spits IX with 303 were the more numerous verssion. So is weird to have this verssion yes.

[CisTer-dB-]

35 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Spits IX with 303 were the more numerous verssion. So is weird to have this verssion yes.

I am not saying that wiki is 100% right but here some info that contradict this

 

E type[edit]

... The 20 mm Hispano cannon were moved outboard and heavy machine guns, the .50 calibre Browning M2/AN, with 250 rpg were added to the inner gun-bays. The first trial installation (modification 1029) was made in BS118 in November 1943; by mid-March 1944 the first service Spitfires to be modified were from 485(NZ), 222 and 349 Squadrons. Spitfires with this armament were at first referred to as Spifire LF.IX .5 and the E suffix was not officially introduced until early 1945. This armament was standard for all Spitfire Mk IXs and XVIs used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as fighters and fighter-bombers from shortly after D-Day.^[7] It proved more effective for both air-to-air engagements and air-to-ground attacks.^[9]

Many Spitfires had their elliptically "pointed" wingtips replaced by shorter, squared off fairings, this slightly improved maximum speed at low altitude and enhanced the roll rate. While many "LF" Spitfires (e.g. the LF.IX) had the "clipped" wings, a number did not. The true distinguishing feature of "LF" versions was the fitting of low-altitude versions of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

 

or here Quote

 

When the same gun was being considered for the Spitfire, the Supermarine had at least two obvious choices, both of which would fit snugly within the universal structure of the C-wing then in production. 

• Placing four .50″ Brownings in the C-wing cannon bays, at the same time removing the outer “.303 Brownings. This would give the Spitfire a complement of four .50-calibre guns, similar to P-51B Mustang.
   
• Placing a .50″ Browning in the unused cannon bay of each wing plus remove the outer “.303 guns. This would give the Spitfire a complement of two 20 mm Hispanos and two .50” machine guns.

As is known, the latter combination prevailed to became widespread standard on Merlin-powered Spitfires during late 1944 and 1945. 

 

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

Edited May 25, 2018 by ATAG_dB

[9./JG27golani79]

Just took her out for a test flight.

Full RPM and full boost - took me about ~15 minutes to damage the engine from which ~10 minutes where spent in a climb below 180mph.

 

Being in such a slow climb with full power and boost - shouldn´t the engine quit sooner?

 

[CisTer-dB-]

It's not because you have reach the manufactured engines limit that it should auto destroy.   

Edited May 25, 2018 by ATAG_dB

[Kurfurst]

Either the engine wear model is not finalized or - and I have a bit of hope for this - perhaps the self destruct countdown model is being reworked...

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Spits IX with 303 were the more numerous verssion. So is weird to have this verssion yes.

 

It's not weird at all. This was by far the most common late war variant.

[TWC_Ace]

Wonderfull plane. Though its very sensitive on controls and prone to snap stall so a pilot should be careful.

Edited May 25, 2018 by blackram

[9./JG27golani79]

32 minutes ago, ATAG_dB said:

It's not because you have reach the manufactured engines limit that it should auto destroy.   

 

Yeah I know and this wasn´t my thought behind my question.

 

It´s just that in all the other Spitfires I´ve flown in different sims where one is also a Mk IX you really get in trouble when you go below 180mph in the vertical because of the cooling and here I could sustain a climb with full boost / full power below this speed without having any temperature problems.

So I was just wondering about that.

 

Overall I think it´s very well done - wonderful plane!

Edited May 25, 2018 by 9./JG27golani79

[Danziger]

Are we missing an aerial wire?

[CisTer-dB-]

13 minutes ago, BorysVorobyov said:

Are we missing an aerial wire?

You mean the cloth line?

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by ATAG_dB

[Danziger]

1 minute ago, ATAG_dB said:

You me the cloth line?

 

Yeah. Is it just so thin I can't see it or did the IX not have one?

[CisTer-dB-]

It was replace by this in around mid 43

 

 

[Danziger]

6 minutes ago, ATAG_dB said:

It was replace by this in around mid 43

 

 

Nice. 

[Herne]

18 minutes ago, 9./JG27golani79 said:

 

Yeah I know and this wasn´t my thought behind my question.

 

It´s just that in all the other Spitfires I´ve flown in different sims where one is also a Mk IX you really get in trouble when you go below 180mph in the vertical because of the cooling and here I could sustain a climb with full boost / full power below this speed without having any temperature problems.

So I was just wondering about that.

 

Overall I think it´s very well done - wonderful plane!

 

I've been trying to find information on this myself. It's hard to find any reliable sources that can confirm  that overheating was a problem while in the air. Only thing I have seen is that it only became a problem if the gear would not fully retract.

If anyone has links to official documents that talk about the cooling difficulties please link them.

[eRoN]

Am really loving this new spit but i had a question. I'm wondering if the flight model is very basic or under-developed. It seems very 'on rails' and therefore far too stable with the feeling there is a fly-by-wire at work behind the scenes here. This is most apparent when pulling hard maneouvers at low speeds, where it is impossible to get any wobble or instability out of the aircraft, it instead just moves to where you want and sticks there. It also seems to suffer what feels like input lag as there is a delay (i think most at high speeds) from moving the stick to the plane moving.  This all may be perfectly normal and because i normally fly 109's so i'm just wondering if it's just this, or because of what i said, as they mentioned something about flight models in the update.

Edited May 25, 2018 by eRoN

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

1 hour ago, ATAG_dB said:

It was replace by this in around mid 43

 

 

Oh is that what those damn things are!? Lol 

[Herne]

6 minutes ago, eRoN said:

Am really loving this new spit but i had a question. I'm wondering if the flight model is very basic or under-developed. It seems very 'on rails' and therefore far too stable with the feeling there is a fly-by-wire at work behind the scenes here. It also seems to suffer what feels like input lag as there is a delay (i think most at high speeds) from moving the stick to the plane moving. This all may be perfectly normal and because i normally fly 109's so i'm just wondering if it's just this, or because of what i said, as they mentioned something about flight models in the update.

 

Not sure what you mean by on rails, but the Spitfire was well known for its benign handling. the wing roots would stall far in advance of the tips giving you plenty of warning, and good control even while in this stalled state. 

A full blown stall the Spitfire has a tendency to stall flat. It did not have a tendency to drop a wing and enter a spin, and if you do find yourself in a spin. It would recover easily. Just neutral control was usually enough to recover after a couple of turns. Even quicker with active spin recovery.

 

The spitfire is fondly remembered by the pilots that flew her, and those that still fly her. I think the Devs have done a really good job of capturing the flight characteristics in game.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

53 minutes ago, eRoN said:

Am really loving this new spit but i had a question. I'm wondering if the flight model is very basic or under-developed. It seems very 'on rails' and therefore far too stable with the feeling there is a fly-by-wire at work behind the scenes here. This is most apparent when pulling hard maneouvers at low speeds, where it is impossible to get any wobble or instability out of the aircraft, it instead just moves to where you want and sticks there. It also seems to suffer what feels like input lag as there is a delay (i think most at high speeds) from moving the stick to the plane moving.  This all may be perfectly normal and because i normally fly 109's so i'm just wondering if it's just this, or because of what i said, as they mentioned something about flight models in the update.

 

You mean it actually flys more like a real aeroplane than what most desktop pilots think an aeroplane should fly like.

 

Check.

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, eRoN said:

Am really loving this new spit but i had a question. I'm wondering if the flight model is very basic or under-developed. It seems very 'on rails' and therefore far too stable with the feeling there is a fly-by-wire at work behind the scenes here. This is most apparent when pulling hard maneouvers at low speeds, where it is impossible to get any wobble or instability out of the aircraft, it instead just moves to where you want and sticks there. It also seems to suffer what feels like input lag as there is a delay (i think most at high speeds) from moving the stick to the plane moving.  This all may be perfectly normal and because i normally fly 109's so i'm just wondering if it's just this, or because of what i said, as they mentioned something about flight models in the update.

Pilot models not flight models. The little men in the cockpits are wearing the wrong outfits. The flight models of the new aircraft are complete and the Spitfire feels pretty much perfect compared to pilot reports. In fact it seems to have more detail than the DCS Spitfire at low speeds.

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, eRoN said:

Am really loving this new spit but i had a question. I'm wondering if the flight model is very basic or under-developed. It seems very 'on rails' and therefore far too stable with the feeling there is a fly-by-wire at work behind the scenes here. This is most apparent when pulling hard maneouvers at low speeds, where it is impossible to get any wobble or instability out of the aircraft, it instead just moves to where you want and sticks there. It also seems to suffer what feels like input lag as there is a delay (i think most at high speeds) from moving the stick to the plane moving.  This all may be perfectly normal and because i normally fly 109's so i'm just wondering if it's just this, or because of what i said, as they mentioned something about flight models in the update.

 

I'm pretty sure this is the finished FM (they have never previously release what was considered an "unfinished" FM to the public - there have been changes of course) and I don't have the rails feeling at all. The IX departs more quickly than the V does in tight turns and it also, probably because of weight, doesn't tuck in quite as much or as quickly when you really yank it into a turn. It feels heavier for sure.

 

The two Spitfires we have now share a lot of handling attributes and are quite similar but having flown both back to back they both feel very real and finished to me.

 

Spitfires were known to handle well and be fairly easy to fly for a warbird. One pilot saying that the controls were sensitive enough that he could use one finger to get the elevator to move and more than one pilot felt like the Spitfire was an extension of his body. It's not some physics defying beast but they did do something very right when designing this fighter and it shows in flight sims and in real life pilot comments.

[eRoN]

27 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

 

26 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

 

Thanks guys. I guess it is just the difference between this bird and the wobbly unstable mess that is the 109.

 

I get why people were complaining about the hispanos being OP though. Reasonably  often with the 109 20mm i get good volleys on VVS aircraft with no visible damage done at all, but with the hispanos i haven't had this situation yet, and they absolutely shred every aircraft to pieces with debris flying off left right and centre at every hit. Maybe it's just a consequence of the larger spread wing mounted guns give vs the very restricted 109 nose gun, either way these hispanos are very satisfying to use.

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 minute ago, eRoN said:

 

 

Thanks guys. I guess it is just the difference between this bird and the wobbly unstable mess that is the 109.

 

I get why people were complaining about the hispanos being OP though. Reasonably  often with the 109 20mm i get good volleys on VVS aircraft with no visible damage done at all, but with the hispanos i haven't had this situation yet, and they absolutely shred every aircraft to pieces with debris flying off left right and centre at every hit. Maybe it's just a consequence of the larger spread wing mounted guns give vs the very restricted 109 nose gun, either way these hispanos are very satisfying to use.

 

Yeah I don't know about the reactions to the Hispanos. The fire quickly, they hit hard, and I can absolutely shred any plane ahead of me. With the IXe its nice to have more ammunition to work with too.

[Talon_]

Latewar RAF HEF-SAPI shells were extremely deadly and made up most of the belts in a Mk IX too. You are also shooting at somewhat fragile German planes compared to miracle Stalinwood wings of glory...