Jump to content

Spitfire MK IX Level Speed query.


Recommended Posts

I'm just wondering what level flight speed others are getting from the Mk IX spitfire? I thought it was normal that later 109's could outrun it until I saw test data suggesting the opposite to be true.

 

I'm seeing around 300 MPH, maybe 320 at best whereas online test data shows it should be more like 350-400MPH with the Merlin 70.

 

Maybe I'm doing something wrong and/or confusing IAS with actual MPH?

 

Thanks  

 

Capture.JPG

Edited by Nake
Link to post
Share on other sites

All 109s in your graph are flying at reduced boost settings as was common in 1942 and the beginning of 1943. The last one in your list seems to be the manufacturer's reference performance graph.

 

Our 109s starting with the G-4 have the 1.42 ATA performance, which causes an increase to around 1400 hp. The G-14 has MW-50, boosting it to 1800 hp at low altitude.

 

Ultimately, what you're looking at here is by no means the performance one could expect out of a late war 109.

 

spit14v109k-level.jpg

 

CS3kyEO.jpg

 

Note the first graph is of a 109 K-4 at 1.8 ATA, which has a bit more oomph still than the G-14 at 1.7 ATA due to being aerodynamically refined, even despite the larger supercharger impeller.

Edited by PainGod85
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thank you.

 

So the data on the later 109s explains their lead in game, but not sure why I'm not seeing anything like the speed reported in the charts? 

 

Looking at the Tempest MkV data it will be a more even match speedwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NAKE350 said:

I'm just wondering what level flight speed others are getting from the Mk IX spitfire? I thought it was normal that later 109's could outrun it until I saw test data suggesting the opposite to be true.

 

I'm seeing around 300 MPH, maybe 320 at best whereas online test data shows it should be more like 350-400MPH with the Merlin 70.

 

Maybe I'm doing something wrong and/or confusing IAS with actual MPH?

 

Thanks  

 

 

 

The charts are in TAS - true air speed. Your cockpit gauge is in IAS - Indicated Air Speed. This will be the same at sea level, but you have to make an adjustment according to height and atmospheric conditions to convert. (Apologies if you already know this). There are some IAS - TAS converter calculators online: for example http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those charts are in True Air Speed while the plane instrument and the tab in game show Indicated Air Speed, the pitot tube reading is affected by air densitiy and temperature which varies with altitude. 

 

So if you dont know how to make the comparison the only point in which IAS=TAS is at sea level in a 15ºC day, you can get this condition in the Autumn maps in game

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NAKE350 said:

I'm just wondering what level flight speed others are getting from the Mk IX spitfire? I thought it was normal that later 109's could outrun it until I saw test data suggesting the opposite to be true.

 

I'm seeing around 300 MPH, maybe 320 at best whereas online test data shows it should be more like 350-400MPH with the Merlin 70.

 

Maybe I'm doing something wrong and/or confusing IAS with actual MPH?

 

Thanks  

 

Capture.JPG

 

You are doing nothing wrong.

 

Its just that you are using a reference that is has been known for using only the best flight test for Spitfires, often prototype machines, at the highest engine ratings (and never showing the bad ones to get a more complete idea where the 'middle ground' was in performance - there was quite a bit of spread in serial production machine's performance), while using the worst flight tests for the 109s, at the lowest possible engine ratings, preferably with some external load like gunpods attached or models that are years apart etc., and ommitting the good ones and even ignoring the official specs for the planes. ;)

 

You see, the difference between what you perceive in the game is simply because this comparision is seriously unfair while Il-2 wants you to give a fair representation of all these great fighters, as much as resources and reverse engineering allows it. Now the difference is of course that the developers of Il-2 Sturmovik (and the devs of other sima)are not interested in such weird mental gymnastics to show that their ‘favourite aircraft’ (as there is probably none) was the end of all things and instead they are using all available figures and work out the ones are the closest to the official and/or most well supported specs of the plane.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be best off comparing the in-game specs rather than a variety of outside tests (of which there can be a dozen different things affecting the performance. Are the gun ports faired over? What weapons is it armed with? Regarding the Spitfire IX it could be a converted MkV rather than a purebred MkIX), if you want a better idea of how to fight the planes in game. Here's the in game straight line speeds straight from Il-2:

20180720110112_1.thumb.jpg.fb7cc5c265d935817968ae9ab38f4003.jpg

 

The 109 is the faster machine, generally. While in the earlier models you could count on them never really hitting their true top speed because they'd have to blow out their engine to sustain 1.42 ATA, the addition of Mw50 in the G-14 changes things. 109 pilots can now use full throttle for much longer, and regularly use it to escape. Whereas before if a 109G pilot, if they were caught at low altitude, wouldn't really have a way out other than maneuvering and hoping for the best, now they can use their quite lengthy boost to get away.

As a Spitfire pilot, you should try and patrol at high altitudes, and use the better handling (especially at high speeds) to kill or cripple the 109 on your first pass, and not give them a chance to pick up speed and try and overcome your energy advantage. If one's on your six, I find 109 pilots very reluctant to follow hard turns, but very easy to pull into rolling scissors, and the Spitfire (especially when clipped) is both the better roller and the better turner.

 

If you want to run down 109s, the P-39 and La-5FN are fun! Or wait for the Tempest, that'll be a rapid bird

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

NAKE350,

 

That graph is from wwiiaircraftperformance.org (it looked familiar to me). It compares fairly early 109s to mostly late war Spits with Merlin 66 and Merlin 70. Also the 109 curves are suspicious, see the individual 109 test charts from the same site. Available on the same site as well as by Kurfurst is test data on Bf 109 G-2 "MT-215"(plane with non-retractable tail wheel too), at sea level, ATA 1.3 it could maintain 520 km/h or 323 miles/h at sea level, where in your opening post's graph similar and nearly similar 109s with same ATA are over 10 mph slower. There are many similar tests on Bf 109 that show disparency between tests and the presented comparison between Spitfire IX and Bf 109 graph by Williams

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

the best flight test for Spitfires, often prototype machines, at the highest engine ratings

 

None of the Spitfires in the graph you responded to are on anything like the maximum boost as was flown by real Spitfires over Europe from January-May 1945. In fact they're all only on +18lbs, real Spitfires flew at +25lbs as you well know but disingenuously disregard.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The a/c in the graph are contemporary.

 

Bf109G-1 manufactured 2.42 to 6.42

Bf109G-2 manufactured 5.42 to 2.43

Bf109G-5 manufactured 11.43 to 6.44

Bf109G-6 manufactured 2.43 to 12.44

 

BS274 (not BF274) from block BS271 to BS319 built 8.42

BS310 from block BS271 to BS319 built 8.42

BS543, BS551 from block BS530 to BS559 built 10.42

EN524 from block EN490 to EN534 built 2.42

MA648 from block MA615 to MA657 built 5.43

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

The a/c in the graph are contemporary.

 

Bf109G-1 manufactured 2.42 to 6.42

Bf109G-2 manufactured 5.42 to 2.43

Bf109G-5 manufactured 11.43 to 6.44

Bf109G-6 manufactured 2.43 to 12.44

 

BS274 (not BF274) from block BS271 to BS319 built 8.42

BS310 from block BS271 to BS319 built 8.42

BS543, BS551 from block BS530 to BS559 built 10.42

EN524 from block EN490 to EN534 built 2.42

MA648 from block MA615 to MA657 built 5.43

 

 

This is true, Merlin 66 Spitfires stayed in service for a surprisingly long time with only small adjustments (armament, tail shape, etc), it's basically the RAF's G6. If you gave it the round tail and .303s instead of M2s it wouldn't be too far out of place fighting the BoK aircraft

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the chart, everyone is free to make their own chart. 😉 As far as I know, no one is questioning the accuracy of the data. However flight tests are usually all over the map since they are influenced by a host of variables, even the weather on the day of the test.

However, that is academic for purposes of the game. Level speed is as shown in the specs.

 

The G-14 is faster than the Spit IX, but that is an unfair comparaison since you are comparing a 1942 with a 1944 plane. In 1944-45, 2nd TAF Spits were doing primarily air-to-ground, but the odd times they ran into the GAF, they had no problem shooting them down, since most LW pilots were rookies fresh out of flight school. 

 

If the GAF had been more of the threat, they would have brought better in fighters, like the Gloster Meteor which was deployed on the continent after Bodenplatte.

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

The Spitfire LF Mk IX for sure isn't a 1942 aircraft.

 

Correct to a point. Spitfire F IXs were around in 1942 but not running +18lbs of boost so weren't as quick as an LF IX.

 

The Spitfire LF Mk IX at +18lbs of boost entered service in March 1943 with 611 and 341 (Free French) Sqns at RAF Biggin Hill Wing.

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

This is true, Merlin 66 Spitfires stayed in service for a surprisingly long time with only small adjustments (armament, tail shape, etc), it's basically the RAF's G6. If you gave it the round tail and .303s instead of M2s it wouldn't be too far out of place fighting the BoK aircraft

While the Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX with the Merlin 66 was in limited production from February 1943, http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p036.html full production didn't start until about 6 months later: before then, production of the L.F. Mk VIII with the Merlin 66 took priority, starting with JF462 in April '43 http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p045.html

with full production starting with JF6740 in June http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p046.html

through the JF-JG series, etc...

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p047.html

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p048.html

Full production of the L.F. Mk IX started in August 1943, starting with, roughly, MH384 http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p063.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:46 AM, RoflSeal said:

The Spitfire LF Mk IX for sure isn't a 1942 aircraft.

 

I would say even 1943 is pushing it a bit, since for most of 1943 only insignificant, penny packet numbers of them were available, amounting to little more than operational trials and working out maintenance and tactics at select Squadrons.

 

RAFSpit9sJune1943.JPG.425fe8cfdefc98c47c67542ebf7bce9c.JPG

 

See also : Ian Carter's 'Fighter Command', Chaper 5, '1943', pg 92.

 

'Of the 47 Spitfire Squadrons available at the beginning of 1943, only 10 were equipped with the MkIX. Owing to the difficulties producing enough engines, and demands for the aircraft from other battlefronts, it remained in short supply. This situation did not markedly improve until the second half of the year. As a result, the vast majority of home Spitfire units had to soldier on with the Mk V, even though this aircraft in most respects were totally outclassed by the opposition.'

 

The Mk IX LF did not arrive in meaningful numbers until the spring of 1944, until then, the Mark V remained the main type. Monthly production numbers of IXLF were very low until the last quarter of 1943, barely sufficient to equip a handful of Squadrons and serve as replacement for operational wastage.

 

Spit_twostagedMerlin_prod42-45.png.7f73074a9fbd4077151cdb452783278d.png

 

The were still 24 Squadrons equipped with Mark Vs at the start of January 1944 (50% of Spitfire squads), followed in a distance by 11 Squadrons IXF (25%) and by that time, a whole 9 Squadrons with IXLF (18%), although the equipment of Spitfire Squadrons steadily improved and Mark IX LFs were becoming numerically important in Fighter Command's arsenal by mid-1944. 

 

Now as for the IXHF, it simply did not exist in 1943 in other than the form of prototypes and AFAIK no operational units were equipped with it until the spring of 1944. 

 

Basically, the operational deployment of the IXLF and IXHF coincided with that of the G-6 MW /-14 and G-6/14/AS.

 

RAF_fighter_reorg_jan_44_2.thumb.jpg.abfaf87ea36eed489d8e6d8f49e91428.jpg

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spit IX was definitely no mainstream ride for the RAF until 1944. HOWEVER, from 1942 on, the „significant“ squadrons on the Channel front operated this type, most notably Johnie Johnson & Co. ever since operation Jubilee in August 1942. The Biggin Hill Squadrons (as well as the Free French) got a hold on this type as well from that time on. These were very active squadrons and surely were noted by the other team.

 

It is more like the Fokker Dr.I that was very rare unless one would fly where Richtofen‘s Circus was located. From summer 1942 on, the Mk. IX surely was a common sight for JG26 pilots. Few in numbers, but anything but rare over the Channel.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

Don't remind me, I wish we'd received the Mk VIII. I hate fixed tailwheels.

While I understand the reasons why a retractable tail wheel is preferable, both the Spit and even later 109s look odd to me without them. Then again, the same thing holds true to me when I see pictures of P-51s with the tail wheel locked in the down position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The Spit IX was definitely no mainstream ride for the RAF until 1944. HOWEVER, from 1942 on, the „significant“ squadrons on the Channel front operated this type, most notably Johnie Johnson & Co. ever since operation Jubilee in August 1942. The Biggin Hill Squadrons (as well as the Free French) got a hold on this type as well from that time on. These were very active squadrons and surely were noted by the other team.

 

It is more like the Fokker Dr.I that was very rare unless one would fly where Richtofen‘s Circus was located. From summer 1942 on, the Mk. IX surely was a common sight for JG26 pilots. Few in numbers, but anything but rare over the Channel.

 

Not only that but Kurfurst only talks about UK Fighter Command as though that was the only thing happening despite his own quotations showing clearly why this is misleading. From early-mid 1943 onwards the Tunisian and then Italian areas had high priority for Mk.IXs since this was where the action was, the threat from LW forces over the channel being by that time politically inconvenient but militarily insignificant. Mk.IXs were channeled into operational units as they came, with squadrons having a period of combat operations with a mixture of types.

 

Aggregate numbers of total stock including low priority rear areas like N.Ireland, Scotland etc are not useful: the best equipment gets channeled to where it is most useful - eventually. At any one time, only a small proportion of RAF squadrons were in frequent contact with the enemy.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Basically, the operational deployment of the IXLF and IXHF coincided with that of the G-6 MW /-14 and G-6/14/AS.

 

The first G-6 MW appeared in late Spring of '44 with III./JG1, I./JG5 and II./JG11. First loss is on May 8 '44.

There was only 1 G-6/AS built (Sept '44). All other G-6/AS were conversions from the G-6.

The G-14/AS did not come off the assembly line til Sept'44 with the G-14 a month earlier.

 

Wasn't the /AS 109s primarily used to combat the American aluminum overcast of B-17 and B-24s?

Edited by MiloMorai
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Spit_twostagedMerlin_prod42-45.png.7f73074a9fbd4077151cdb452783278d.png

 

More disingenuous charts from our dear friend, @VO101Kurfurst . Let's not forget that those 45 Spitfire LF IXs made in April 1943 accounted for 10% of all Spitfire construction that month, and that by August 1943 the 250 late-Merlin Spitfires manufactured accounted for well over half of all Spitfire production.

 

d1.gif

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Not only that but Kurfurst only talks about UK Fighter Command as though that was the only thing happening despite his own quotations showing clearly why this is misleading. From early-mid 1943 onwards the Tunisian and then Italian areas had high priority for Mk.IXs since this was where the action was, the threat from LW forces over the channel being by that time politically inconvenient but militarily insignificant. Mk.IXs were channeled into operational units as they came, with squadrons having a period of combat operations with a mixture of types.

 

Aggregate numbers of total stock including low priority rear areas like N.Ireland, Scotland etc are not useful: the best equipment gets channeled to where it is most useful - eventually. At any one time, only a small proportion of RAF squadrons were in frequent contact with the enemy.

It's a theme that Kurfurst has been pushing for years, trying to make out that poor old Fighter Command/2 TAF were supposedly reliant on the poor old Mk V in Europe, because production of Merlin 60 series Mk IXs was so low. Of course, Kurfurst fails to mention that the January 1944 chart shows that many FC & 2 TAF Fighter squadrons that had been equipped with Spitfire IXs through 1943, had then rested on rear echelon airfields during the winter of 1943-44 (at a time when 2 TAF was undergoing an expansion), using older Spitfire Vs as interim equipment, before they were re-equipped with later versions of the IX, including L.F Mk IXs, or Typhoons or Mustang IIIs. By the time operations restarted in earnest in late January, there were more than enough Spitfire L.F Mk IXs in frontline service over North Western Europe. Above all of this, relative Spitfire strength and marks in January 1944 has absolutely nothing to do with relative strengths earlier in 1943, or in June 1944.

 

The claim, supposedly from Carter (there isn't an actual page scan), that by early 1944 the Spitfire Mk. IX was in short supply, supposedly because of difficulties producing enough engines was total nonsense - even the dubious production chart made and presented by Kurfurst (no information where the figures were compiled from, for instance) shows that some 200 hundred L.F. Mk. IXs had been built in July 1943, while by the end of 1943 something like 1,700 L.F. Mk IXs had been built...then there are all those pesky  L.F. Mk VIIIs.

 

In addition, as you have pointed out, many L.F. IXs, along with L.F. Mk VIIIs, were being sent to the Mediterranean Theatre in mid-to late 1943, replacing Spitfire Vs, albeit, the latter were still useful as frontline fighter-bombers. Spitfire L.F. Mk VIIIs were also being sent to the CBI theatre, replacing Spitfire Vs, and to the RAAF in the Pacific , also replacing Spitfire Vs. So, so what if Fighter Command/ADGB and 2 TAF was relying on older Spitfire Vs as interim equipment in January 1944? It proves absolutely nothing, apart from the fact that the glorious Jagdwaffe was no longer seen over Britain by late 1943, allowing the RAF to re-equip its fighter squadrons in peace.

 

Naturally, Kurfurst also failed to acknowledge that, by late 1943-early '44, with the advent of Merlin-engined P-51s, plus longer-ranged P-47s and P-38s, to escort American strategic bombers,  there wasn't such a pressing need for high altitude fighters like the Spitfire H.F. MK IX, H.F. Mk VIII or the pressure cabin equipped H.F Mk VII: the priority for the British had switched to building medium to low altitude fighters and fighter-bombers for 2 TAF, and the Mediterranean based forces: as it is, those H.F. Spitfire Mk. IX, VIIIs and VIIs that were built rarely encountered Luftwaffe fighters at high altitude.

Edited by NZTyphoon
North Western, not North Eastern Europe
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also recall the tendency also to count 'reserve RAF' but not Luftwaffe, the ignoring of ability to actually generate sorties of late models 109s (let alone pilots) and the disconnect between whatever documents from Berlin were saying and the reality on the front line.

 

2nd TAF had more than enough Typhoon IBs and Spitfire IXs (as well as P-51s) to undertake operations over France - and certainly over Holland and Germany - mid-to-late '44. The Luft '46 tendency and [Allies woz rubbish] habit has become increasingly tiresome - the 1.98 ata argument being a prime example of this (no evidence from font line units, an argument on paper referencing something that might have been done from DB, no accounting for the relative difficulties of putting a/c into service in front line units) vs. the RAF and USAAC that has surfeit of a/c, parts, fuel and pilots but apparently did not have any decent aircrfat or ran them (sportingly, one can only presume) at low performance settings.

 

Mk Vs in FC - as has been endless pointed out - cover all aircraft on strength including training and OCU units  - not aircraft in the primary combat theaters. It is particularly amusing that this red herring keeps arising in defence of high-performance 109 use [evidence limited] in an air force that was both wiring Panzerfausts to training aircrfat in order to provide a ground-attack arm and planning for 1946 jet aircraft production with the Red Army on the Oder. The massive differential between factual positions here is just ludicrous.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor old Luftwaffe, always suffering with bad late-war performance in every flight sim almost as if that's supported by all documentation of how things went in real life. But keep fighting the good fight Barbi! I'm sure as more and more documents come to light in the future your position will only become more indefensible! 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do feel a bit sorry for the OP whom I suspect just needed to get the IAS-TAS distinction clear so that he could delve further into this great hobby: only to get a rerun of this.....

 

Hope he has not been put off flight sim forums for life! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

I do feel a bit sorry for the OP whom I suspect just needed to get the IAS-TAS distinction clear so that he could delve further into this great hobby: only to get a rerun of this.....

 

Hope he has not been put off flight sim forums for life! 

 

 

Yeah, but such is life. No doubt he and others will  be wondering why they are forced to fly '44 engine settings in the April '45 part of BoBp / servers while the - maybe - 30-40 109s that might have been running higher boost settings become the standard on all servers. Just like the 50-ish Ez.42s that saw service in piston-engined fighters.

 

Still, he can always carry a couple of rockets...

 

Oh and as always - caveat emptor re: production graphs (especially Kurfurt's) the Spit Vs are the air-frames ordered as the V - but include (without indicating) those turned out as IXs - which was a common element of the orders from late '42 into '43 before th orders of straight IX become the majority (the VIIIs are different, being 2nd gen air-frames) thus the graphs underestimate IX production. You would have to look at Merlin production and integration numbers to show how many IX were actually being delivered.

 

To put it briefly, specified 'V' production 1941-43 (ie not including V airframes turned out as IXs '42 - '43) ran to c. 6,500 while VIII / IX / XVI production '43 - '45 (summer '45, admittedly, but production of these were ramped down from April as planning turned to TIGER Force) is c.8,000. Since the Vs were being lost or transferred to OCUs and increasingly became the platform of the non-European force, it become pretty obvious that Vs were not the core of FC over France in Spring 1944 but remained in absolute numbers on the books of the RAF due to other employment than 2nd Taf. Sure, some did indeed remain, but do not let 'production of Vs' sleight of hand blind anyone to the more complex distribution of aircrfat types. BoBp is Summer '44 - April '45; Spit Vs were not front-line fighters for 2nd TAF over France (were any in France? not clear that they were and thus are a total irrelevancy) by that stage and hence it is an irrelevant point.

 

Me 108 with Panzerfausts, anyone...?

Edited by EAF19_Marsh
Typos, typos everywhere!
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
On 7/22/2018 at 11:07 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

Basically, the operational deployment of the IXLF and IXHF coincided with that of the G-6 MW /-14 and G-6/14/AS.

 

No, the operational deployment of the alcoholic-109s coincided with the Spitfire XIV.

 

Let's also not forget that two single-staged supercharger equipped (Griffon) Spit XII squadrons had been formed with the first airplanes being produced in October '42.

Spitfire XIVs began reaching squadrons in late 1943.

 

True, the Griffon Spit production only ramped up slowly, but they were the contemporary models to the G-6-late and G-14.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 4:33 PM, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Spit Vs were not front-line fighters for 2nd TAF over France (were any in France? not clear that they were and thus are a total irrelevancy) by that stage and hence it is an irrelevant point.

 

 

As I recall, 64 Sqn, 130 Sqn, 234 Sqn and 402 Sqn were still equipped with LF.Vb/c for Overlord period. However these units were all assigned to ADGB, not 2nd TAF and whilst they flew offensive patrols over the beach-head in their Vs, within a month they had converted to IXs and XIVs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most games (and multiplayer servers) need to neuter the Spitfires and give the 109s almost never used (or extremely rare) engine ratings to keep things fair. 

I'm curious to see when the Griffons come if its the same :fly:

I've likely rustled a few Wehraboos with that one. 

Best bet is to try and bait them into a fight at altitude, I've had my most success well above the clouds. 
 

Edited by DenumPenguin
  • Upvote 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...