DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

At the risk of starting a big argument, the effectiveness of mineshells vs normal HEI rounds is debatable. They have much more explosive (and thus a lot more destructive energy) but the thin drawn body lacks mass to be thrown out as fragments. Shockwaves are generally poor energy carriers compared to fragments, as the shock will lose power much more quickly over distance and cannot penetrate objects like a fragment can, so it's up in the air as to which approach worked better in practice. IMO You'd need statistical data to make a proper judgment.

 

Also, doesn't the MG151 have a higher fire rate than the Hispano? from what I've read the MG151/20 fires 750rpm while the Hispano Mk II fires 600rpm. Obviously the synchronization would slow it down a bit, but Kurfurst has claimed on other forums that the Germans used an electrical synchronization system that allowed very small losses in rate of fire (and he certainly knows more than me about the specifics of WWII German gun installations).

Just give me a ruddy Spit IX and fly your 109/190 in front of me. Then we'll find out.

Just give me a ruddy Spit IX and fly your 109/190 in front of me. Then we'll find out.

I prefer to fly planes that don't resemble swiss cheese, so no.

At the risk of starting a big argument, the effectiveness of mineshells vs normal HEI rounds is debatable. They have much more explosive (and thus a lot more destructive energy) but the thin drawn body lacks mass to be thrown out as fragments. Shockwaves are generally poor energy carriers compared to fragments, as the shock will lose power much more quickly over distance and cannot penetrate objects like a fragment can, so it's up in the air as to which approach worked better in practice. IMO You'd need statistical data to make a proper judgment.

 

Mineshells have a delayed fuse what let it explode after it penetrated the surface it hit (even if just a bit).

Normal HE explodes on impact on the surface. The difference of the damage dealt can be easily portrayed by letting a firecracker explode on top of a price of snow or buried into it.

The result is much larger punctual damage (big ass hole) what is catastrophic on airplanes but rather pointless on soft targets, where the splash damage of standard HE is much more effective.

The effectiveness of the Mineshells is much more related to how and when it blows up and fragments don fly far around inside of a wing, so more chemical power is the better choice.

Besides, if the mineshells would be less effective than simpler HE designs from the time, why did other nation copy it, on for example the ADEN cannon?

Just give me a ruddy Spit IX and fly your 109/190 in front of me. Then we'll find out.

Haha +1

Nerd, the german did some testing before the war, and they found fragmentation ammunition did not enough damage to the newly introduced aluminium hull.

The mine ammunition was also with timing, they detonate when it was half in the aluminium hull, rely on the gas blast not fragmentation.

And chance of second shell follow in the hole of the hull was realy high because of M151 high firing rate and did massive dmg to the internal controls.

P-47D-30 vs Current DCS fighters

 

http://m.imgur.com/Qo0se47

Quoted from the P-47 thread.... it just makes me wonder why they even bothered to even make a Spitfire Mk IX if they planned to give us a 1943 version, it will be eaten alive without the +25lb boost.

I really hope they realize the huge mistake they are making and give it the +25lb... are they doing it so as to not tread on the toes of the VEAO Spit XIV, I highly doubt it as that would be pathetic.

I just still for the life of me can't fathom out why they would give us a 1943 aircraft to fight late 1944/1945 aircraft, could someone PLEASE explain the reasoning behind this?

Quoted from the P-47 thread.... it just makes me wonder why they even bothered to even make a Spitfire Mk IX if they planned to give us a 1943 version, it will be eaten alive without the +25lb boost.

 

I really hope they realize the huge mistake they are making and give it the +25lb... are they doing it so as to not tread on the toes of the VEAO Spit XIV, I highly doubt it as that which would be pathetic.

 

I just still for the life of me can't fathom out why they would give us a 1943 aircraft to fight late 1944/1945 aircraft, could someone PLEASE explain the reasoning behind this?

It is a going to be a problem for sure, they will have to fast track a new Spit I guess after the release of the relic :doh:

Is it to do with the 100 grade/150 grade fuel argument, if they give the spit +25 lb boost then they will be forced to give the P-51 a boost?

The only piece of official information I can find is this...

Mmm... the Spitfire at 18 lb has equal energy with 109K with MW50. Will you feel good as you know that at 25 lb you have superiority over your opponent? :)

Which lets be honest is not an answer... I don't see what energy has to do with ANYTHING here, all that matters is SPEED and historic data.

I am a 190 pilot and I cannot fathom out why we get the December 1944/1945 version of the Dora and the allies keep on getting cut short?

I am a 190 pilot and I cannot fathom out why we get the December 1944/1945 version of the Dora and the allies keep on getting cut short?

Because it was already in development by ED before the Kickstarter by Ilya/RRG or even WW2 concept was a thing, but still fits the theme?

I feel like I have to keep mentioning this every few months.

Just like the P-51 and I doubt ED will cave into severely altering these planes just because someone feels it's not competetive (Which P-51 absolutely is, atleast against the Dora), historical references aside.

Of course, if you'd rather not have it...

99% of the people in this thread have not even flown the Spitfire yet, but somehow manage to badmouth it and say how much it is going to suck. And based on what, level top speed? :lol:

ED has mentioned before, development is based on the information they have available to them to provide the most authentic sim experience, and not what makes the most sense for online gameplay balance.

Plus, there's always Kickstarter to try and fund the development of G-14 and A-8 modules... :music_whistling:

Because it was already in development by ED before the Kickstarter by Ilya/RRG or even WW2 concept was a thing, but still fits the theme?

 

I feel like I have to keep mentioning this every few months.

 

Just like the P-51 and I doubt ED will cave into severely altering these planes just because someone feels it's not competetive (Which P-51 absolutely is, atleast against the Dora), historical references aside.

 

Of course, if you'd rather not have it...

 

99% of the people in this thread have not even flown the Spitfire yet, but somehow manage to badmouth it and say how much it is going to suck. And based on what, level top speed? :lol:

 

ED has mentioned before, development is based on the information they have available to them to provide the most authentic sim experience, and not what makes the most sense for online gameplay balance.

 

Plus, there's always Kickstarter to try and fund the development of G-14 and A-8 modules... :music_whistling:

Utter rubbish... Plans can and should change.

We are not even getting a 1944 Spitfire we are getting a 1943 version, no one in there right mind can justify that choice when ww are getting late versions of every other aircraft (it is not even an IXe!

Speed is survival, you know it so don't try and down play it.

Utter rubbish... Plans can and should change.

 

We are not even getting a 1944 Spitfire we are getting a 1943 version, no one in there right mind can justify that choice when ww are getting late versions of every other aircraft (it is not even an IXe!

 

Speed is survival, you know it so don't try and down play it.

A fw 190A from 1943 would be so cool .I would pootle around with it and shoot lots and lots of p51 with 150 boost .

Utter rubbish... Plans can and should change.

 

We are not even getting a 1944 Spitfire we are getting a 1943 version, no one in there right mind can justify that choice when ww are getting late versions of every other aircraft (it is not even an IXe!

 

Speed is survival, you know it so don't try and down play it.

Not even that, we are getting a 1943 spitfire with 1941 equipment, else why put a clothes line down the back of it?

It is not even out yet and some people are moaning about it.

 

Give it a chance guys, I am really looking forward to the Spitfire Mk LF IXc, stop trying to kill my buzz lol

Well, can you tell me why there is a HF antenna on a 1943/44 aircraft when the RAF stopped using HF radios on Spitfires in 1940?

It is not even out yet and some people are moaning about it.

 

Give it a chance guys, I am really looking forward to the Spitfire Mk LF IXc, stop trying to kill my buzz lol

Lol, don't tell them there is a Stuka in the works.

Lol, don't tell them there is a Stuka in the works.

Reason I'm interested is that I used to install MF,HF, and VHF radios on ships for a living, now that I'm retired I am a licenced ham radio operator and still very interested in all forms of radio.

I find it a little jarring that what was phased out in the 1940s is being modelled on something that is supposed to be from 1944.

If this was a Battle of Britain era Spitfire I would be quite happy with it, I did question it when the first pictures of the Mk IX were shown but never got a reply or reason as to why.

Thanks :)

Still eagerly awaiting her arrival :pilotfly:

Thanks :)

 

Still eagerly awaiting her arrival :pilotfly:

Oh same here, I can't wait to fly her :)

I am just voicing my concerns :(

Any estimate when she'll be released? I'm trying to decide if it's worth saving my money or just buying a different aircraft

Any estimate when she'll be released? I'm trying to decide if it's worth saving my money or just buying a different aircraft

Weekend news letter a while back said they hoped to release the Spit IX by mid 2016. Things seem to be progressing well so hopefully they can keep to that timeframe.

Quoted from the P-47 thread.... it just makes me wonder why they even bothered to even make a Spitfire Mk IX if they planned to give us a 1943 version, it will be eaten alive without the +25lb boost.

 

I really hope they realize the huge mistake they are making and give it the +25lb... are they doing it so as to not tread on the toes of the VEAO Spit XIV, I highly doubt it as that would be pathetic.

 

I just still for the life of me can't fathom out why they would give us a 1943 aircraft to fight late 1944/1945 aircraft, could someone PLEASE explain the reasoning behind this?

They are not giving us an 1943 version, ED's choice is correct and they are giving is us what is exactly the historic 1944 Spitfire, a Spitfire Mk IXc L.F. with 18 lbs boost, althouh the flight model is still alpha and will need a bit of tuning at and above the FTH region.

VEAO is already working hard to bring us a super late and super rare version of the XIVe - which is what also the RAF was doing back in 1944/45 when the IX did not quite cut it.

They are not giving us an 1943 version, ED's choice is correct and they are giving is us what is exactly the historic 1944 Spitfire, a Spitfire Mk IXc L.F. with 18 lbs boost, althouh the flight model is still alpha and will need a bit of tuning at and above the FTH region.

 

VEAO is already working hard to bring us a super late and super rare version of the XIVe - which is what also the RAF was doing back in 1944/45 when the IX did not quite cut it.

Full service approval of the +25 boost was on March 10th, 1944. So yes, they are giving us 1943 Spitfires that didn't even have a mathematical chance to meet Doras and Kurfürsts.