Jump to content
Panthera

Spitfire Mk.XIV poll

Should the Spitfire Mk.XIV be added as a collectors plane to IL-2 Bodenplatte?  

152 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Spitfire Mk.XIV be added as a collectors plane to IL-2 Bodenplatte?

    • Heavens yes! IL-2 BP needs this aircraft!
    • Maybe..
    • Nope, simply not interested in this aircraft.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I understood what you were trying to say. It is nonsense, since you can't equate proficiency sitting at a desk playing games with proficiency in flying a 6-tonne first-generation jet fighter.

 

And by that you've just proven you that you either a) didn't understand a thing or b) are just simply fond of making up stuff

 

I'm done with this. The way some people behave on this forum really makes me question their motives for being here.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 1:44 AM, AndyJWest said:

The thing is, 'more proficient in the aircraft' is a very specific claim to make, since it suggests that 'the aircraft' is the same thing in both cases. It isn't, and that is all that needs to be said.

 

The problem is in this conversation I think, is that you are conflating the skills required to pilot a real life airplane with the understanding of the physics and tactics of aerial combat, which don't change whether it's in real life, or even a badly simulated environment like WarThunder. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GridiroN said:

 

The problem is in this conversation I think, is that you are conflating the skills required to pilot a real life airplane with the understanding of the physics and tactics of aerial combat, which don't change whether it's in real life, or even a badly simulated environment like WarThunder. 

 

 

 

I'd have thought that the 'tactics of aerial combat' would change a great deal if your life was on the line. But what would I know, I'm only a virtual pilot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think AndyJWest is being a little unfair to Panthera:   all he was saying was equivalent to "I can become more proficient in riding my bike than a WW2 pilot could in flying his Me262" . That should be uncontroversial.  He obviously did not mean "I can become more proficient at flying a real Me262 than a WW2 pilot by spending time riding my bike".  It is obvious in context that substituting "Me262" into "bike" in the first statement is referring to the sim-Me262, not the real one.  

 

Some random thoughts:

 

Someone using a simulation in conjunction/alternation with using a real object being simulated can definitely become more proficient in using the RL object than someone who is  only using the RL simulated object, provided that: 

 

1) They can use the simulation to extend the training time over that available in RL 

2) The simulation is sufficiently accurate that it can be used to teach behaviour required in RL 

3) The simulator does not kill you for mistakes, but repeated mistakes are punished in some way.  

 

If this was not true, there would be no point whatever in the military using simulations. But they do - because they improve proficiency, not just in procedures but in decision making and tactics.  Of course a simulation can only improve RL proficiency in so far as it accurately simulates certain aspects of reality.  To the extent that a simulation is inaccurate, using it would potentially decrease proficiency in that area.  Which probably covers most of what we do in BoS.  ;)  

 

But to the extent that we can, should we chose to do so, practice certain drills like landing, navigation, high side attacks on bombers etc, use of BoS could have a beneficial effect on RL performance.  Put it like this: if PCs and BoS had been available to WW2 airforces, they could have been used to improve proficiency in certain areas, even though it is a simplification, provided that the drills taught were defined and it was used to supplement RL training.  


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the Spitfire XIV is essential to 1944 / 1945 air superiority over Europe. It is also the peak of Spitfire development during WW2 - with immense power and performance whilst maintaining most of the earlier Marks' manouverability.

Furthermore, it has never been modelled before for ANY flight simulator (apart from Modded IL-2 1946, but it didn't feel like it flew 'right')

 

My tuppence worth.

 

Now how do I vote in this bleedin poll?! Seriously, I can't see what button or whatever to push / click

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

When it comes to Spitfire XIV it’s a bit complicated. I’m personally a great fan of Spitfires, my fellow countrymen was flying Spitfires etc.

But i can see one problem with Spitfire XIV.

 

Spitfire IX and Mustang, two top allied fighters, are using the same engine – Merlin 66. One is more maneuverable the other is faster. There are very comparable. Thud has very good high alt performance, Lighting very good climb rate, Tempest very high low alt speed. There are more or less comparable. You choose one depending what you like.

 

Spitfire XIV has completely different engine – Griffon. It would be just plain the best plane outclassing Spit IX, Mustang, Thud, Tempest, Lighting etc. It would have everything; the best climb, the best speed, the best acceleration, the best maneuverability, very strong armament, everything.

 

There would be no choosing between different allied planes – simply pick XIV as fast as you can, if you didn’t make it pick some other, worse plain which left.

 

I know the game is not about balance but about history (Mk. XIV didn't play any major role historically also). I’m just saying. Being great fan of Spitfires.

Edited by sereme1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sereme1 said:

But there is one problem with Spitfire XIV.

 

So, in other words, typical multiplayer ego issues that result in long-winded dramatic posts on the forums.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think he does have a point.

 

Multiplayer is a bit of a stretch anyways: You're putting up a 4v4 or 6v6 (or whatever the server/ mission allows) planeset, when in reality there were no Luftwaffe planes around to really do anything at all. The numbers were anything in between 1:10 and 1:20, so multiplayer only shows a very skewed picture.

 

Spit XIVs were seen rarely mostly because they weren't desperately needed at the front.

There were enough other capable (and yes: more capable*) airframes available.

Also their legs were quite short (similar issues with the very late firebreathing 109s - twice the engine-power, same tank volume).

 

* for 2nd TAF's mission

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, sereme1 said:

It would have everything; the best climb, the best speed, the best acceleration, the best maneuverability, very strong armament, everything.

 

Saying that the SpitXIV would completely outclass the Tempest even at lower level is as dramatic as it is inaccurate. 11 boost Tempest is quicker and has better controls at high speeds. Also that the SpitXIV would run circles around a C3 fed 190D9 at lower altitudes is also a strong statement, given they are rather similarish in weight and power and the Dora handles well at high speeds.

 

What the SpitXIV obviously has, as plus point, is the fact that it cannnot be disputed that it was present at that time and location. Much in contrast to some boost ratings that have a more academic note to them.

 

But for now, personally I am looking forward to the aircraft featured on the BoBP list. They are fun for starters.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the boost settings for the XIV over time and how does the XIV compare to a LF IX (IX B in correct Spitfire parlance?) at 18lbs and 25lbs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

What would be the boost settings for the XIV over time and how does the XIV compare to a LF IX (IX B in correct Spitfire parlance?) at 18lbs and 25lbs?

From memory, I think it went 18 lbs, then 21 lbs and finally 25 lbs.  Easy to research.  Completely different engine from the IX.  Jeffrey Quill, the famous Spitfire test pilot, said in his book that the XIV was the best fighter version of the Spitfire of the war; and he should know!  Shame that combat sim developers seldom model it.   

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituaryjeffrey-quill-1340389.html

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

P.S.  The XIV was the 2nd TAF's higher altitude air superiority fighter.  

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman
Add P.S.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2018 at 7:27 AM, Bremspropeller said:

Spit XIVs were seen rarely mostly because they weren't desperately needed at the front.

 

What in all living hell are you talking about? The first RAF unit to recieve Spit 14's was in January of 44. And by the time of Bodenplatte, the Spitfire Mark 14's were the principle air superiority fighter being used by the Royal Air Force.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2018 at 1:27 PM, Bremspropeller said:

 

Spit XIVs were seen rarely mostly because they weren't desperately needed at the front.

There were enough other capable (and yes: more capable*) airframes available.

Also their legs were quite short (similar issues with the very late firebreathing 109s - twice the engine-power, same tank volume).

 

* for 2nd TAF's mission

 

I beg to differ:

 

On the last day of September 130 and No. 402 Squadron RCAF, equipped with Mk XIVs, flew to airfield B.82, Grave. Their arrival was timely as they, along with the Hawker Tempest units, were needed to counter the Me 262 nuisance raids. In December the three Lympne based units ( 41, 350 and 610 Squadrons) flew to join the others on the Continent, eventually becoming part of 125 Wing. 610 Squadron was disbanded later to help maintain the level of aircraft and pilots of these units. So there you have it 5, later 4 squadrons on the Continent. 

 

And...it is one of the most sexy Spitfires ever. 😉 Can´t beat that argument for a nice collector plane can you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

 

What in all living hell are you talking about? The first RAF unit to recieve Spit 14's was in January of 44. And by the time of Bodenplatte, the Spitfire Mark 14's were the principle air superiority fighter being used by the Royal Air Force.

 

The Luftwaffe was by then not the primary threat to figter-bombers. Air superiority wasn't 2nd TAF's job, hence the comparatively low numbers.

XIVs weren't in dire need.

 

9 hours ago, sevenless said:

So there you have it 5, later 4 squadrons on the Continent. 

 

Not exactly common then. The most frequent Spitfire type still was the IX.

That's exactly why I wrote "rarely".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Not exactly common then. The most frequent Spitfire type still was the IX.

That's exactly why I wrote "rarely".

No argument here, however rarity is no criterion in this game, otherwise we shouldn‘t have the P38, but shurely would have the Typhoon, should have G14/AS and other stuff. It‘s more about attractivity for the player and added variety which decides what is included or left out. If enough people are interested, why not add it and earn some additional money with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said I was against the XIV in game. In fact, I voted for it.

I'm pointing out that people claming the XIV was all over the place are full of crap and are totally missing the job of 2nd TAF.

That wasn't duellig it out with the Luftwaffe at 20000ft, but shooting up stuff on the ground.

 

The P-38 actually fits the bill much more than a Spitfire XIV, being mostly a fighter-bomber (or recce plane) by the time represented in the game. For the same reason, a Typhoon would fit the game much better - and I'd say it probably would turn in more profit than a Spit XIV.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The P-38 actually fits the bill much more than a Spitfire XIV, being mostly a fighter-bomber (or recce plane) by the time represented in the game. For the same reason, a Typhoon would fit the game much better - and I'd say it probably would turn in more profit than a Spit XIV.

 

If I recall correctly, there is an air superiority fighter for the USAAF in the P51D Mustang, two very powerful fighters for the Luftwaffe in the Me109K and Fw190D9 - yet only the Spitfire MkIXe for the RAF. You could argue that the Tempest is an air superiority fighter, but it reached its' top speed of 430 mph at an altitude of less than 20,000ft, above which performance decreased. The Spitfire MkXIV could reach speeds of 448 mph at roughly 30,000 ft and go on to a service ceiling altitude of nearly 44,000 ft. When one considers that 5 squadrons were in action with the 2nd TAF, it isn't too rare. And intercepting the late war luftwaffe fighters such as the 109K and 190 D9, the ability of the Spitfire XIV to reach higher up and with an unbeatable climb rate (of all RAF fighters) of 5,000 ft/min, it is an important role that it fulfills.

 

With regards to profitability, I'd say that the MkXIV, being possibly the best RAF fighter of the war, would be in great demand, especially with less experienced players who want a killer ride.

 

Cheers

Algy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-51 is in game mostly because of Operation Bodenplatte, where the 352nd FG pretty much slaughtered the Luftwaffe units over their airfield.

In the 9th AF there were only few Mustangs around (most notably 354th FG). The Mustang also flew in 2nd TAF.

It's therefore a very good choice, not least because it's an icon and thus selling more copies of the game.

 

The 2nd TAF wasn't about air superiority, but about bombing and strafing the crap out of the Germans behind their lines, disrupting logistics and ths bleeding out their ability to put up pressure on the ground.

With a numerical superiority of about 20:1, the Allies weren't in dire need for air superiority fighters, because they had the benefit of being able to stack fighters in CAPs at several altitudes and bounce Luftwaffe airplanes taking off or trying to intervene at will. That was occasionally helped by Luftwaffe fighter-guidance which was so bad at times, high ranking Generals should have better been shot for treason.

 

The 2nd TAF was pretty much never in a situation where it had to intercept german aircraft* - mostly because the Luftwaffe was an also run in terms of threat-management. Allied fighter-bombers had a loss-rate of around 30%, of which the overwhelming share was due to german AAA.

 

Now if you need a Spit XIV because most of your flying is on an unhistorical dogfight-server, well, that is your thing. I'm more interested in historical setups, where other key-role airplanes are missing way more before I'd get too uncomfortable about not having a XIV in game. The Typhoon IB is one of them.

 

____

* Apart from the jets, but that's another story.

Yes there were german night attacks on Britain, but they came at night for exactly one reason: They were dead meat at daytime - and that was not due to the Spitfire XIV, but because of boatloads of other fighters on tap for the RAF, Free French and USAAF. ALL of them were capable of countering the german airplanes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

there were only few Mustangs around (most notably 354th FG).

Actually, the 354th, much to their chagrin, were flying P-47 Thunder

bolts at this time. They did not get their Mustangs back until the following March.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The P-51 is in game mostly because of Operation Bodenplatte, where the 352nd FG pretty much slaughtered the Luftwaffe units over their airfield.

In the 9th AF there were only few Mustangs around (most notably 354th FG). The Mustang also flew in 2nd TAF.

It's therefore a very good choice, not least because it's an icon and thus selling more copies of the game.

 

The 2nd TAF wasn't about air superiority, but about bombing and strafing the crap out of the Germans behind their lines, disrupting logistics and ths bleeding out their ability to put up pressure on the ground.

With a numerical superiority of about 20:1, the Allies weren't in dire need for air superiority fighters, because they had the benefit of being able to stack fighters in CAPs at several altitudes and bounce Luftwaffe airplanes taking off or trying to intervene at will. That was occasionally helped by Luftwaffe fighter-guidance which was so bad at times, high ranking Generals should have better been shot for treason.

 

The 2nd TAF was pretty much never in a situation where it had to intercept german aircraft* - mostly because the Luftwaffe was an also run in terms of threat-management. Allied fighter-bombers had a loss-rate of around 30%, of which the overwhelming share was due to german AAA.

 

Now if you need a Spit XIV because most of your flying is on an unhistorical dogfight-server, well, that is your thing. I'm more interested in historical setups, where other key-role airplanes are missing way more before I'd get too uncomfortable about not having a XIV in game. The Typhoon IB is one of them.

 

____

* Apart from the jets, but that's another story.

Yes there were german night attacks on Britain, but they came at night for exactly one reason: They were dead meat at daytime - and that was not due to the Spitfire XIV, but because of boatloads of other fighters on tap for the RAF, Free French and USAAF. ALL of them were capable of countering the german airplanes.

 

 

The flaw is see regarding your comment about historical setups is that historical air superiority is not something that can be reasonably and practicably delivered as part of the combat flight simulation world as far as I can see. 

 

On MP servers sides are always balanced with the same numbers of pilots and aircraft and I am happy that it is that way, even if it is not historical.  I accept this because the simulation of historical air combat scenarios is limited by what is possible and what is desirable. 

 

Therefore, I believe that it makes sense, within reason, for aircraft sets to be provided by developers with a mind to the historical technological development time line.  Particularly in terms of when an aircraft type was first released for normal squadron combat operations, as well as consideration for historical numbers of types of aircraft concerned in the battle space.  This seems fair to me, given that historical air superiority, and many other things besides, are not part of the flight simulation historical experience provided.

 

The Spitfire XIV is a perfectly valid aircraft for BP, given the date it entered squadron operational service, as well as the numbers over the battle space launched by 2nd TAF. (also from the South of England I might add.)  The RAF was able to use older less able aircraft like the Spit IX and Typhoon because it had air superiority.  Superiority that is not modelled in BoX.  I suggest that if the Allies had been more desperate and did not have total air superiority, they would have prioritised more Tempest V and Spitfire XIV aircraft, but historically they did not need to.  BoX is not totally historical WWII, but it does its best to give us a sense of air combat with some of the aircraft that were involved.

 

It would be great to have all the aircraft types involved over the battle space, but the dev's have not been able to do that and have made an initial choice for now.  I see no reason to argue about this poll or criticise others for stating a choice in favour of the Spitfire XIV.  Surely there is no need to pit one aircraft preference against another in an unfriendly way to each other.  I am sure that most of us love all aircraft and aviation.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XIV shouldn't be a Battle of Bodenplatte collector aircraft.

It should be in the main planeset, instead of the Mk.IX to begin with.

 

There's no reason why the Mk.IX would even be in the planeset - it's a 1942 aircraft, it's if like the 109 G-2 was included in BoBp. For me the Spitfire Mk.XIV is as essential to the planeset as the P-51D or the later mark Gustavs. 

 

There's really some decisions behind the planesets in general that I don't understand - the Mig-3 is a 1942 variant, the Yak-9 (most built soviet fighter) is not in the game and so on. Really dissapointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

There's no reason why the Mk.IX would even be in the planeset - it's a 1942 aircraft,

They produced tons of it in 1944 and it was not the exact same aircraft as in 1942. The Mk.XIV was not the main Spitfire Mark in 1944 in the same was the Mk.XII was not the representative Spitfire Mark in 1943. And by 1945 you don‘t have the Mk.21 as main representative.

 

Besides, for purpose of mindless fragging around trees, the Mk.IX is the better suited aircraft. It is lighter and about as fast down low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were only 2 Spit XIV squadrons in September 1944 (No. 130 and 402) and three sqns were added in December (No. 41,  350 and 610). The main types were Spit IX and XVI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

There were only 2 Spit XIV squadrons in September 1944 (No. 130 and 402) and three sqns were added in December (No. 41,  350 and 610). The main types were Spit IX and XVI.

 

I'm sorry but if we follow this logic then how many Bf-109 K-4 squadrons were around in September 1944? A big, fat zero. 

All I'm saying, is that if one side gets rare aircraft such as the K-4 or 190 D-9, which were build in fairly low numbers and rare enough that most allied fighter pilots would only ever hear about them, it would make sense to include similar types for the other.

 

Also, if we want to be nitpicky, then the Me-262 wouldn't even ever operate from the airbases on the Bodenplatte map. I'm just pointing out some inconsitensies in the development, that I hope will be ironed out in the future releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

There were only 2 Spit XIV squadrons in September 1944 (No. 130 and 402) and three sqns were added in December (No. 41,  350 and 610). The main types were Spit IX and XVI.

 

Well 2 squadrons in the beginning 9/44 growing up to 5 squadrons 12/44 are more than the available Fw190s in BoS and BoK. So there should be no problem to put them in as collector planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

I'm sorry but if we follow this logic then how many Bf-109 K-4 squadrons were around in September 1944? A big, fat zero. 

All I'm saying, is that if one side gets rare aircraft such as the K-4 or 190 D-9, which were build in fairly low numbers and rare enough that most allied fighter pilots would only ever hear about them, it would make sense to include similar types for the other.

 

Also, if we want to be nitpicky, then the Me-262 wouldn't even ever operate from the airbases on the Bodenplatte map. I'm just pointing out some inconsitensies in the development, that I hope will be ironed out in the future releases. 

Except K-4 Gruppen in September, you've very strange knowledge in history...

24 minutes ago, sevenless said:

So there should be no problem to put them in as collector planes? 

There is no problem to put them in as collector planes, I'd like to see Typhoon, Spit XIV and Ar 234 in BOBP

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

There is no problem to put them in as collector planes, I'd like to see Typhoon, Spit XIV and Ar 234 in BOBP

 

That´s great! Gives me hope that we might see them in the game at some point. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

Except K-4 Gruppen in September, you've very strange knowledge in history...

 

I'm struggling to find any sources that would confirm that. As far as I know no K-4s were operational prior to October 1944, so if you have any sources proving otherwise and wound't mind sharing I'd be forever grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right about K-4 in September, there weren't these planes untill Nov 1944 on our map but K-4 or 190 D-9 weren't rare aircraft in the german Gruppen from Dec 1944 and Me-262 Gruppen had airbases on our map

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

I'm saying, is that if one side gets rare aircraft such as the K-4 or 190 D-9, which were build in fairly low numbers and rare enough that most allied fighter pilots would only ever hear about them, it would make sense to include similar types for the other.

 

Also, if we want to be nitpicky, then the Me-262 wouldn't even ever operate from the airbases on the Bodenplatte map. I'm just pointing out some inconsitensies in the development, that I hope will be ironed out in the future releases.

 

The heck are you going on about? Me 262s most certainly flew from multiple airbases to be featured on the Bodenplatte map, and K-4s & D-9s were operational in the same area from autumn onwards. Allied pilots would have and did see them with relative regularity. 

 

Seriously man, crack open a few books before making such wrong-headed statements. 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typhoon should be there, counting earlier models it is the longest serving Ground attacker over low countries and France 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The heck are you going on about? Me 262s most certainly flew from multiple airbases to be featured on the Bodenplatte map, and K-4s & D-9s were operational in the same area from autumn onwards. Allied pilots would have and did see them with relative regularity. 

 

Seriously man, crack open a few books before making such wrong-headed statements. 

Yup, my bad. I didn't realize how big the map actually is, and that far western airbases will be included. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7th March 1944 Spitfire Mk XIV combat with FW 190's.

 

The web page below provides a link to the actual historical combat report and below is a typed extract from the report.

 

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

 

Combat Reports

610 Squadron's Intelligence Officer recorded on 7 March, 1944 what may be the Spitfire XIV's first aerial combat:

     Black section, (P/O Hussey and F/Sgt. Harding) were patrolling on an east west line about 20 miles south east of Start Point 500 feet above sea level, under the control of Kingswear C.H.L. Station.
     At approx 17.30 hours the Section was told to investigate unidentified aircraft 15 miles ahead, on a vector 120 degrees. After two minutes this vector was changed to 150 degress (At this time Black one was using only plus 12 lbs boost with his jet tank still on, and the A.S.I. was clocking about 350 miles per hour.) The section was now outside G.C.I. cover, but after about a minute 3 F.W. 190's appeared from 9 o'clock approx 200 feet below, flying in a fairly close vic on a rough vector of 240 degrees; visibility was bad owing to haze, and the section had hardly seen the E/A before they had passed underneath to 3 o'clock.
     Black Section immediately pulled round to the right, and it seemed that the E/A saw them at the same moment, for as our section turned on their tails, black smoke was seen pouring from their engines as they pushed everything forward and dived to sea level. The F.W. 190 on the left of the section turned south, and the other two turned away and disappeared into the haze and glare of the sun. Our section gave chase to the single F.W. 190 which at this time, was about 800 yards ahead, right on the deck. We closed without difficulty but when 400 yards away, Black 1 noticed a F.W. 190 making a quarter attack on him from between 4 and 5 o'clock, so gave the order to "break right". As he pulled up he saw the E/A fireing at him with insufficient deflection, and it appeared that the turning circle of the Spitfire XIV was better than that of the F.W. 190. Black 1, at 1,000 feet, was now in the haze and lost sight of the F.W. 190 and his No. 2.
     Black 2, who was on the left of Black 1, saw the F.W. 190 break off his attack on Black 1, and dive south west to sea level, so he rolled down to the left and got on to the tail of the F.W. 190 at a distance of about 800 yards (The F.W. 190 that our section had been chasing originally, had disappeared by this time)
     At first Black 2, did not close on the F.W. 190 as fast as he would have liked (probably due to the excitement, he forgot to jettison his tank with Black 1 at the commencement of the first chase. The addition of the jet tank would probably take off 30 miles per hour.) Another F.W. 190 now appeared ahead at about 11 o'clock, and joined formation on the left of the aircraft that Black 2 was chasing.
     Black 2 now found that he was closing in quite fast, around 400 I.A.S. and opened fire on the left hand F.W. 190 from dead astern at 300 yards he saw strikes on both wing roots and panels flew off the port mainplane as he closed to about 100 yards. Not until the strikes were observed did the other E/A take any action. Even then he did nothing for some time, then pulled straight up and round to the left, and tried to get on the tail of Black 2. Black 2 took a final squirt at his target whose only evasive action was pitching slightly up and down, before he broke into the other E/A which was trying to get on his tail (although clocking 360 m.p.h. the turning circle of the Spitfire seemed superior to that of the F.W. 190) The F.W. 190 fired at Black 2 but allowed insufficient deflection then broke off his attack and disappeared into the mist. The E/A was not seen again. 60
Edited by 56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there should be a Spitfire XIV included in the plane set ASAP since there is the very rare 1.98ata K-4 in the plane set.

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 5:20 AM, BlackSix said:

You're right about K-4 in September, there weren't these planes untill Nov 1944 on our map but K-4 or 190 D-9 weren't rare aircraft in the german Gruppen from Dec 1944 and Me-262 Gruppen had airbases on our map

 

That depends on the date at least for the 1.98ata K-4s.

Edited by MiloMorai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since we are getting a Tempest, is there really still a need for the Spit XIV?

 

tempest-speed-p.jpg.2a4f4e9a7894dc0818c3744ce4e17b5c.jpg

 

Tempest V with +9 boost is faster than the K4 up to 12,000 feet and as fast from 12,000 to 20,000 feet. I presume we should get +11 boost.

 

it says 1.8 ata for the K4, but the top speed of 715 kmh (444 mph) at 6,200 meters (20,000 feet) listed in the DD more or less matches up with the diagram, so the performance curve should be similar.

 

spit14v109k-level.jpg.8b43eb9067aa01ba1ed12d19778e4394.jpg

the advantage of the Spit XIV is only at over 21,000 feet/ 6, 400 meters (150 octane) where relatively little combat occurs in game.

 

I am all for additional planes, but I doubt it will add much.

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tempest lines on charts look tempting :)

 

but that 715kmh for k4 is at 7200m in that chart, not 6200 like last dd say, so maybe they have some other charts considering 700 from last dd for p-47 is also at 7000m in dd insted atleast 1000m higher on some charts shown there. So speeds are as epected but for both 47 and k4 at lower alts then expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×