Spitfire better than P-51D for online matches?

[Krupi]

I have to agree with Krupi here. I never really played DCS WWII much before the Spit was released. I flew a few online missions with the P51 and realized that I was outmatched so badly by the Germans that I gave up. Maybe I could have done better with the Mustang had I flown it differently, not sure. When the Spit was released I started playin online with it and I bet my kill death ratio against German planes is around 4:1! And I'm still new to DCS WWII!! Mjmorrow is correct, the German planes can determine the terms of the fight. They can choose when to engage and when to disengage but in my experience this does not determine their ability to kill the Spit, sure they can run but that is not equal to a kill....

 

+100% just because you can run doesn't mean that you can win.

[Tomsk]

The Axis rides can determine the terms of the fight against the Spitfire, period. The Spitfire is outclassed.

 

So I'm a huge fan of being able to determine the terms of the fight, and I generally like fast aircraft that dive well for exactly this reason.

 

However, how useful it is probably depends on your objective. If your objective is to go out and shoot down enemy fighters without being shot down, then yes, being able to dictate the terms is huge. You can choose to only take fights where you have the advantages. On the DCS dogfight servers this is therefore a huge bonus.

 

However, suppose your are escorting bombers ... the fact you can run away from the fight is nice, but you'll leave your bombers completely vulnerable. Similarly, if you need to shoot down enemy bombers ... it's good you can run away from the fight, but that's not going to shoot any enemy bombers down. You could never lose a single fighter, and still effectively have been completely defeated in the air. For a great deal of missions you don't need to shoot the enemy's fighters down, if you can simply deny them the opportunity to act.

[TripRodriguez]

Question from a DCS noob: Why aren't we doing bomber escorts now?

 

Mods are available for A.I. bombers no? Are these impractical for our mission builders to use?

[HeadHunter52]

In my opinion, the Spitfire bests the Mustang against the Krauts. Even at altitude, the Mustang is a sloppy plane, and loses more altitude in maneuvers than the Germans. Getting back up there is a pain.

 

With the Spit, I can climb better, turn better, hit harder.... If only the flapping WINGS WOULDN'T BREAK OFF I'd have even more success with it. (That has to be a bug.)

 

I haven't touched the Mustang since a month before the Spit came out. I may fly it again when there is a missions for it, or maybe to enjoy the nice trim options and ground attack fun. But for fighting? Nah. Ain't worth the aggravation.

[Zunzun]

What you wrote doesn't contradict anything I pointed out, not one bit. The Spitfire is a sitting duck, the proverbial Sopwith Camel from VM. Yeates book, "Winged Victory." That you can use it for bait so your P-51D can get a clean shot off of a distracted Axis sim pilot doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. The Axis rides can determine the terms of the fight against the Spitfire, period. The Spitfire is outclassed. Going on and on about Effective Team Building changes nothing.

 

I think you only consider "Free Hunt" as a fighter mission. In that scenario, yes, the Spitfire can´t dictate the terms of the fight. Being outclassed? Not so. If the Spit hold the energy advantage at the beginning of the fight then there is not much room for either the 109 or the 190. Obviously, on an even ecounter, the main advantage, speed, is on axis hands.

But as Tomsk has pointed out, depending on the mision that can be very different. Misions like ground support means you have to, be low and dirty. There speed doesn´t means near as much than in free hunt. Normandy campaign had a lot of those misions.

Given the right tactics and the right mision the spitfire IX is and was a deadly oponent.

[Zimmerdylan]

In my opinion, the Spitfire bests the Mustang against the Krauts. Even at altitude, the Mustang is a sloppy plane, and loses more altitude in maneuvers than the Germans. Getting back up there is a pain.

 

With the Spit, I can climb better, turn better, hit harder.... If only the flapping WINGS WOULDN'T BREAK OFF I'd have even more success with it. (That has to be a bug.)

 

I haven't touched the Mustang since a month before the Spit came out. I may fly it again when there is a missions for it, or maybe to enjoy the nice trim options and ground attack fun. But for fighting? Nah. Ain't worth the aggravation.

 

 

Exactly what I have been saying for a long time. I seem to get a lot of flack for it but it's absolutely true.

[Hiromachi]

I think its a matter of personal preference rather than actual superiority of one or the other. Obviously both machines are very different and emphasize different tactics, there are some who find Spitfire better and some who find P-51 better.

 

Personally I was eagerly awaiting Spitfire but once I got it I must admit I am quite disappointed. I'm rather a fan of maneuvering than efficient and conservative flying but Spitfire is not exactly the kind of maneuvering machine I'd be looking for. I got back to P-51 and the only thing I can honestly say I'm jealous is armament. So far nothing can replace two Hispanos. A battery of six M2 Brownings, particularly as it is only 3 x simple AP and 1 x APIT load, seems to be far less effective than Hispanos with HE rounds, I'd even say that two MG 131 with their HEI are more effective than six of my Brownings. So that's a bummer as current damage models are primitive and until we got highly anticipated ones and proper P-51 loadout, biggest lack of a Mustang is its firepower.

 

On the other hand P-51 gives me speed, stability, controlability, visibility advantage over Spitfire. It's also far less prone to blowing up its own engine. Spitfire might seem better one here, in multiplayer, but lets face it - we are playing quake arena with furballs, few 109s at the top picking what they want and rest of the people mixing below. Once Normandy appears and some sort of realistic missions come, Spitfire might look very different.

 

So far I'd say, to each his own.

[Tomsk]

In my opinion, the Spitfire bests the Mustang against the Krauts. Even at altitude, the Mustang is a sloppy plane, and loses more altitude in maneuvers than the Germans. Getting back up there is a pain.

 

With the Spit, I can climb better, turn better, hit harder.... If only the flapping WINGS WOULDN'T BREAK OFF I'd have even more success with it. (That has to be a bug.)

 

I haven't touched the Mustang since a month before the Spit came out. I may fly it again when there is a missions for it, or maybe to enjoy the nice trim options and ground attack fun. But for fighting? Nah. Ain't worth the aggravation.

 

People come to flight simulators with a particular mindset. Often, that mindset is "I wanna get into some action, and make as many kills in as little time as possible ... and if I go down in a blaze of glory that's fine, it's quicker to re-plane than land anyway". There's nothing wrong with that mindset, but it does lead to certain choices seeming better. If you fly with this mindset the Spitfire will seem a much better choice.

 

Alternatively you can come with the mindset of "I want to make kills yes, but most of all I want to bring the plane home afterwards. So why would I ever engage in a fight where I have to maneuver with the enemy? Maneuvering with the enemy is dangerous ... I want to reserve the right to fire for myself, I will give the enemy no opportunity to fire and reject every fight where they could". If you fly with this mindset, IMO you're more likely to choose the P-51.

 

That said, I do agree with Hiromachi about being envious about the armament. I really hope the new damage model brings a damage boost for the 50 cals, they really need it in my opinion.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Tomsk

[Solty]

People come to flight simulators with a particular mindset. Often, that mindset is "I wanna get into some action, and make as many kills in as little time as possible ... and if I go down in a blaze of glory that's fine, it's quicker to re-plane than land anyway". There's nothing wrong with that mindset, but it does lead to certain choices seeming better. If you fly with this mindset the Spitfire will seem a much better choice.

 

Alternatively you can come with the mindset of "I want to make kills yes, but most of all I want to bring the plane home afterwards. So why would I ever engage in a fight where I have to maneuver with the enemy? Maneuvering with the enemy is dangerous ... I want to reserve the right to fire for myself, I will give the enemy no opportunity to fire and reject every fight where they could". If you fly with this mindset, IMO you're more likely to choose the P-51.

 

That said, I do agree with Hiromachi about being envious about the armament. I really hope the new damage model brings a damage boost for the 50 cals, they really need it in my opinion.

People also like to judge the airplanes fight capability only basing on its turn rate. And sure it is important, however speed is the ultimate weapon. If one is faster, he/she dictates the fight. What I see flying in the P51 is that at least teams are balanced. Before spit we had 16bger vs 5us.

 

With new DM its gonna get better.

[Krupi]

I think its a matter of personal preference rather than actual superiority of one or the other. Obviously both machines are very different and emphasize different tactics, there are some who find Spitfire better and some who find P-51 better.

 

+1

 

Personally I was eagerly awaiting Spitfire but once I got it I must admit I am quite disappointed. I'm rather a fan of maneuvering than efficient and conservative flying but Spitfire is not exactly the kind of maneuvering machine I'd be looking for. I got back to P-51 and the only thing I can honestly say I'm jealous is armament. So far nothing can replace two Hispanos. A battery of six M2 Brownings, particularly as it is only 3 x simple AP and 1 x APIT load, seems to be far less effective than Hispanos with HE rounds, I'd even say that two MG 131 with their HEI are more effective than six of my Brownings. So that's a bummer as current damage models are primitive and until we got highly anticipated ones and proper P-51 loadout, biggest lack of a Mustang is its firepower.

 

On the other hand P-51 gives me speed, stability, controlability, visibility advantage over Spitfire. It's also far less prone to blowing up its own engine. Spitfire might seem better one here, in multiplayer, but lets face it - we are playing quake arena with furballs, few 109s at the top picking what they want and rest of the people mixing below. Once Normandy appears and some sort of realistic missions come, Spitfire might look very different.

 

So far I'd say, to each his own.

 

I have to disagree with all of that (apart from the cannons :D) you can't have a stable and yet manoeuvrable aircraft, aircraft engineering just doesn't work like that you can either be good at one or the other.

 

If you don't like the Spitfire from a manoeuvring point of view I think you might be more of a boom and zoomer ;) personally I don't enjoy flying the P-51 when there are axis around :helpsmilie: I feel like I have to stick to zooming or I have to hit the silk... now I will put a caveat on this by admitting I am not a very good P-51 pilot because I think to do well you really have to have a lot of patience.

 

If I try to deviate from boom and zooming I feel like the Mustang is an apt name, it tries to buck me off. With the spitfire I feel a lot more at home and unless I get caught with my pants down I feel safe.

 

I can climb better, I can manoeuvre myself until I am glued to the aircraft in front of me regardless of what they try and do. If I come across an E/A with an E advantage I can either try and force them to make a mistake or I have to run for home, the mustang is no different in that respect however the spitfire suits my flying style a lot more.

 

People come to flight simulators with a particular mindset. Often, that mindset is "I wanna get into some action, and make as many kills in as little time as possible ... and if I go down in a blaze of glory that's fine, it's quicker to re-plane than land anyway". There's nothing wrong with that mindset, but it does lead to certain choices seeming better. If you fly with this mindset the Spitfire will seem a much better choice.

 

Alternatively you can come with the mindset of "I want to make kills yes, but most of all I want to bring the plane home afterwards. So why would I ever engage in a fight where I have to maneuver with the enemy? Maneuvering with the enemy is dangerous ... I want to reserve the right to fire for myself, I will give the enemy no opportunity to fire and reject every fight where they could". If you fly with this mindset, IMO you're more likely to choose the P-51.

 

That said, I do agree with Hiromachi about being envious about the armament. I really hope the new damage model brings a damage boost for the 50 cals, they really need it in my opinion.

 

Ironically I have the exact opposite feeling due to my flying style, I feel like I am much safer in my Spitfire. :D

[Tomsk]

If you don't like the Spitfire from a manoeuvring point of view I think you might be more of a boom and zoomer ;) personally I don't enjoy flying the P-51 when there are axis around :helpsmilie: I feel like I have to stick to zooming or I have to hit the silk... now I will put a caveat on this by admitting I am not a very good P-51 pilot because I think to do well you really have to have a lot of patience.

 

I enjoy flying the P-51, but it is an exercise in patience. Still sometimes you can have fun and do okay. I recently got bounced by a higher 109, and the fight proceeded with me sucking him into a rolling scissors at high-speed (which the 109 is bad at). He was forced to overshoot, and I rolled on his six for a neat kill. It feels so good when you do that in the P-51, knowing you're doing it with a whole bag of disadvantages :)

 

I can climb better, I can manoeuvre myself until I am glued to the aircraft in front of me regardless of what they try and do. If I come across an E/A with an E advantage I can either try and force them to make a mistake or I have to run for home, the mustang is no different in that respect however the spitfire suits my flying style a lot more.

 

I totally agree different people have different styles, and so like different planes. For me the key is that the Mustang is better at running for home. The Spit doesn't dive well, and it's slow on the deck anyway. When I fly German most of my Mustang kills are from players who never knew I was there. Most of my Spit kills are Spits that couldn't run, and so now are 4-vs-1 being boomed-and-zoomed from all angles in a damaged plane that seems to have run out of ammo. They always go down eventually.

[Hiromachi]

Heh, I am pleased that I can add something disagreeing with that, even though its not entirely related to the topic. You can have stability AND maneuverability. Prime example of such aircraft is Zero fighter, which in accordance with NACA evaluation along with its own constructor (Jiro Horikoshi) post war university publications was the case. This comes from control system design, if I may quote NACA :

"The longitudinal stability in turning flight, as measured by the slope of the curve of elevator angle against lift coefficient, was exceptionally large. A stick motion of about 6.0 inches was required to go from level flight at high speed to the stall. This degree of stability is very desirable on an airplane intended to have high maneuverability and exceeds the standard requirement of 4 inches of stick movement."

Other extremely important element were flexible (stretching) cables connecting stick and elevator. This was created to match human reactions. This is explained in 1965 article report released at University of Tokyo titled "Reduced Stiffness Concept applied to Elevator Control System" by J. Horikoshi:

"(...) But later verification in flight was incidentally made by pilots who had chances of comparing the characteristics of the A-1* and those of a newer Japanese model and/or foreign airplanes of fighting category. They reported that the A-1's longitudinal response characteristics to stick actuation from a high G maneuver to a fine corrective control were definitely superior to those of any other ship they had ever flown before, and that it was the only fighter among them that was controllable for a beginner pilot so smoothly, so precisely and so truly as he liked.

(...)

The stiffness finally reached was adopted in all the production models of the A-1, which won later a unique reputation even among the opponent pilots in longitudinal maneuverability as well as in longitudinal response characteristics, although most of them hardly recognized where these desirable characteristics came from."

*A-1 is a name given in article to A6M.

 

I dont want to hijack this thread with further citations, but the above is one of the reasons I'm so much anticipating Leathernecks Zero some day. People focus on its maneuverability or numerous flaws, but omit various interesting design features that never got mentioned and which made that aircraft clearly unique.

 

I can maneuver with Mustang, there are however certain limits of that. Generally I am not afraid of dancing with 190s in any situation, most of the time I'm confident I can win (though neither am I a great pilot and end result is different from desired, but thats why I try not to fly alone. People make mistakes, so I bring with me Solty since he is good at fixing my mistakes :)

109 is a different story, but not due to some amazing turning capabilities but its almost incredible energy levels (I assume its power to weight ratio has to do something with it), even after doing hard 180 degree turn it can just go up and fly away. Hard switch from horizontal to vertical is not going to work with P-51 which burns more in maneuvering and does not regain as fast.

 

My problem with Spitfire is that I cant see really well in front of me and taking lead is more problematic, in my opinion nose is obstructing too much. It would help if pilot could be seated higher and different gunsight was installed. I dont like various instabilities existing in this aircraft either. And I feel better flying defensive in a Mustang due to better roll rate, speed and visibility. And sometimes that annoying radar alarm gets useful. But thats less often than it gets annoying !

But I'd gladly trade those Brownings for two Hispanos.

 

To each his own Krupi. Glad that you like Spitty :)

[Captain Orso]

So I'm a huge fan of being able to determine the terms of the fight, and I generally like fast aircraft that dive well for exactly this reason.

 

However, how useful it is probably depends on your objective. If your objective is to go out and shoot down enemy fighters without being shot down, then yes, being able to dictate the terms is huge. You can choose to only take fights where you have the advantages. On the DCS dogfight servers this is therefore a huge bonus.

 

However, suppose your are escorting bombers ... the fact you can run away from the fight is nice, but you'll leave your bombers completely vulnerable. Similarly, if you need to shoot down enemy bombers ... it's good you can run away from the fight, but that's not going to shoot any enemy bombers down. You could never lose a single fighter, and still effectively have been completely defeated in the air. For a great deal of missions you don't need to shoot the enemy's fighters down, if you can simply deny them the opportunity to act.

 

++++This THis THIS!!!

 

This is why AirQuake is AirQrap. Put the aircraft into the roles they actually had to fulfill, give them realistic tasks, and then see what happens.

[Solty]

;) personally I don't enjoy flying the P-51 when there are axis around :helpsmilie: I feel like I have to stick to zooming or I have to hit the silk... now I will put a caveat on this by admitting I am not a very good P-51 pilot because I think to do well you really have to have a lot of patience.

 

If I try to deviate from boom and zooming I feel like the Mustang is an apt name, it tries to buck me off. With the spitfire I feel a lot more at home and unless I get caught with my pants down I feel safe.

 

I can climb better, I can manoeuvre myself until I am glued to the aircraft in front of me regardless of what they try and do. If I come across an E/A with an E advantage I can either try and force them to make a mistake or I have to run for home, the mustang is no different in that respect however the spitfire suits my flying style a lot more.

[/quote=Krupi;3010807]

I agree that the Spitfire (in theory) has at least one advantage and that is low speed turning. In theory though, because as some Spit players say, it just overheats and cannot use its full potential in this regard. All I see constantly is 109s outturning Spitfires or just climbing away in style, knowing that the Spitfire's engine will die pretty quick.

 

But, the only reason you have an ability to shoot down a German plane is due to them overcommitting. If you find an experienced pack of 109s, at least in a P51 you can try to run. Even though for some reason 109s are faster than P51.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Solty

[Krupi]

During my first few flights I was completely blown away by how manouverable the aircraft is I was also blown away by how quickly I was burning the engine now I can still turn just as well and I don't have issues with blowing my engine, I was simply going to slow with full throttle.

 

Now I know what to do, should I in any situation find myself slower than 180 mph I need to increase my speed or drop my boost. Dropping boost doesn't mean the advantage goes to the 109 if he is at the same altitude i can still follow him in a climb, at least initially I certainly can't do that in a p-51.

 

When I have come across a 109 with altitude and speed advantage I can avoid his passes on me until I have increased my own altitude and last time this happened the 109 pilot refused to turn, in the end from a bad position I ended up going into three/four head on passes before the 109 realised he had lost his advantage and decided to drag me over to his base. At that point I was able to disengage and safely RTB.

 

Now if in this situation I was in a P-51 I simply wouldn't know what to do other than run... If I were to climb I lose speed and therefore also my ability to avoid his passes, personally I would feel my only option would be to try and run for home.

 

The spitfires ability to retain energy appears to be on par or greater than the 109.

 

Of course we could go back and forth for weeks discussing which aircraft is better in a certain situation. As has been said in the thread it is down to personal preference, you can either you stick to the aircraft you fly well or learn to fly your favourite aircraft in a way that you can succeed.

 

Take the 190, it is constantly vying for top position in my favourite list with the spitfire yet in the game the 109 suits my tactics a whole lot more than the 190 does. However when flying the spitfire I find the 190 to be my biggest threat because those that have stuck with it know how to fly it, just like the P-51 pilots they know which fights to enter and which to avoid.

 

This I think can be the downfall of the 109 and spitfire pilots, because they know they could win they don't refuse the fight when perhaps they should. Like you say they overcommit, however it is because they know they could win.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Krupi

[Krupi]

Heh, I am pleased that I can add something disagreeing with that, even though its not entirely related to the topic. You can have stability AND maneuverability. Prime example of such aircraft is Zero fighter, which in accordance with NACA evaluation along with its own constructor (Jiro Horikoshi) post war university publications was the case. This comes from control system design, if I may quote NACA :

"The longitudinal stability in turning flight, as measured by the slope of the curve of elevator angle against lift coefficient, was exceptionally large. A stick motion of about 6.0 inches was required to go from level flight at high speed to the stall. This degree of stability is very desirable on an airplane intended to have high maneuverability and exceeds the standard requirement of 4 inches of stick movement."

Other extremely important element were flexible (stretching) cables connecting stick and elevator. This was created to match human reactions. This is explained in 1965 article report released at University of Tokyo titled "Reduced Stiffness Concept applied to Elevator Control System" by J. Horikoshi:

"(...) But later verification in flight was incidentally made by pilots who had chances of comparing the characteristics of the A-1* and those of a newer Japanese model and/or foreign airplanes of fighting category. They reported that the A-1's longitudinal response characteristics to stick actuation from a high G maneuver to a fine corrective control were definitely superior to those of any other ship they had ever flown before, and that it was the only fighter among them that was controllable for a beginner pilot so smoothly, so precisely and so truly as he liked.

(...)

The stiffness finally reached was adopted in all the production models of the A-1, which won later a unique reputation even among the opponent pilots in longitudinal maneuverability as well as in longitudinal response characteristics, although most of them hardly recognized where these desirable characteristics came from."

*A-1 is a name given in article to A6M.

 

I dont want to hijack this thread with further citations, but the above is one of the reasons I'm so much anticipating Leathernecks Zero some day. People focus on its maneuverability or numerous flaws, but omit various interesting design features that never got mentioned and which made that aircraft clearly unique.

 

I can maneuver with Mustang, there are however certain limits of that. Generally I am not afraid of dancing with 190s in any situation, most of the time I'm confident I can win (though neither am I a great pilot and end result is different from desired, but thats why I try not to fly alone. People make mistakes, so I bring with me Solty since he is good at fixing my mistakes :)

109 is a different story, but not due to some amazing turning capabilities but its almost incredible energy levels (I assume its power to weight ratio has to do something with it), even after doing hard 180 degree turn it can just go up and fly away. Hard switch from horizontal to vertical is not going to work with P-51 which burns more in maneuvering and does not regain as fast.

 

My problem with Spitfire is that I cant see really well in front of me and taking lead is more problematic, in my opinion nose is obstructing too much. It would help if pilot could be seated higher and different gunsight was installed. I dont like various instabilities existing in this aircraft either. And I feel better flying defensive in a Mustang due to better roll rate, speed and visibility. And sometimes that annoying radar alarm gets useful. But thats less often than it gets annoying !

But I'd gladly trade those Brownings for two Hispanos.

 

To each his own Krupi. Glad that you like Spitty :)

 

I am a big zero fan, I can't wait to fly if in dcs :thumbup:

[Whisper]

I agree that the Spitfire (in theory) has at least one advantage and that is low speed turning. In theory though, because as some Spit players say, it just overheats and cannot use its full potential in this regard. All I see constantly is 109s outturning Spitfires or just climbing away in style, knowing that the Spitfire's engine will die pretty quick.

 

But, the only reason you have an ability to shoot down a German plane is due to them overcommitting. If you find an experienced pack of 109s, at least in a P51 you can try to run. Even though for some reason 109s are faster than P51.

You burn your Spit engine the first few times, then you don't anymore. +18 is for the initial acceleration, then either the guy in front of you will be faster so you can drop it, or you're going in a climb and speed will not allow to sustain usage of +18, so in both case you learn to drop the boost pretty fast.

Which doesn't mean you lost. That vaulted speed advantage of german fighters, while true, is not a 100% invulnerability either. It's only visible after 10+ seconds of speed running. In the meantime, a Spit with its turning and acceleration (and guns) can make the german pay.

 

On another note, more inline with the original question, I'd say to not try to compare Spit vs P51, but more how they can complement each others. From guts feeling, I think they are more complementary than the 109/190 duo.

[MaxDamage]

Both mustang and spit are sort of trashy in pvp. Spitfire is just hit hard by its design philosophy of a turnfighter. Mustang is for long range and hence overweight.

[MaxDamage]

Absolutely agree, a better top speed on paper is a long way from a magic win button.

 

Um this is only true for noob level pilots like in that example.

For reasonable or good pilots air combat is quite predetermined. And the outcome most of the time is based on who has the better plane. Air combat is actually very simple and primitive. When you push the skills to the limit, you see the same thing over and over again.

[Krupi]

Both mustang and spit are sort of trashy in pvp. Spitfire is just hit hard by its design philosophy of a turnfighter. Mustang is for long range and hence overweight.

 

:doh:

 

Arguably the two highest scoring western front allied aircraft described as trashy... LOL

[Solty]

You burn your Spit engine the first few times, then you don't anymore. +18 is for the initial acceleration, then either the guy in front of you will be faster so you can drop it, or you're going in a climb and speed will not allow to sustain usage of +18, so in both case you learn to drop the boost pretty fast.

Which doesn't mean you lost. That vaulted speed advantage of german fighters, while true, is not a 100% invulnerability either. It's only visible after 10+ seconds of speed running. In the meantime, a Spit with its turning and acceleration (and guns) can make the german pay.

 

On another note, more inline with the original question, I'd say to not try to compare Spit vs P51, but more how they can complement each others. From guts feeling, I think they are more complementary than the 109/190 duo.

 

Not really. Spit has to rely on slow speed tight turnfights which make the P51 unable to follow those. If P51 needs help it dives and runs which the Spit cannot cope with as it is slow and cannot catch the adversary.

 

They cannot help each other, maybe Spit can fly low so P51s can b&z running Gerries.

[Krupi]

Not really. Spit has to rely on slow speed tight turnfights which make the P51 unable to follow those. If P51 needs help it dives and runs which the Spit cannot cope with as it is slow and cannot catch the adversary.

 

They cannot help each other, maybe Spit can fly low so P51s can b&z running Gerries.

 

They definitely can help each other.

 

P-51 climb with the spits protecting them at this vulnerable stage and then act as top cover when the axis aircraft attempt to run.

 

They complement each other incredibly well, using each others advantages to support one another.

 

I have seen this teamwork in action.

[Solty]

They definitely can help each other.

 

P-51 climb with the spits protecting them at this vulnerable stage and then act as top cover when the axis aircraft attempt to run.

 

They complement each other incredibly well, using each others advantages to support one another.

 

I have seen this teamwork in action.

 

Well, I would love to see that as well. All I see is burning allied planes falling dwon in different parts of the sky.

 

To me the biggest benefit of the Spitfire is that servers are more populated. Which means less Germans on my tail.

[Krupi]

Give people the chance to learn the pro's and con's of the aircraft.

 

I think if you ask any 109 pilot if the spitfire has had an impact I am 100*% sure that they will tell you that the skies are not as safe as they once were with the arrival of the spitfire.

 

This will be confirmed once the stats from burning skies have been released.

 

P.s. the aircraft is in beta and has some teething issues which need to be resolved as well, I still think the wings come off far too easily and I have already adjusted my flying to try and avoid this.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Krupi

[Whisper]

Not really. Spit has to rely on slow speed tight turnfights which make the P51 unable to follow those. If P51 needs help it dives and runs which the Spit cannot cope with as it is slow and cannot catch the adversary.

 

They cannot help each other, maybe Spit can fly low so P51s can b&z running Gerries.

 

Well, 1st effect, as a 109, I won't turn & burn a P51 anymore, because that Spit in the vincinity is going to handle me nicely if I do so....