Spitfire variants?

[agentdarnell]

I am still quite confused about the differences between the different spitfires we will have in DCs. I preordered one already, and would love to know. I guess I am trying to decide if it will be different enough to throw down another 50.00 for the same type of plane. So what will some of the differences be betw3en the ones we get?

[saburo_cz]

ED is going to release Mk.IXc and this is true Spitfire with R-R Merlin engine as we know legendary Spitfire.

 

If VEAO one day release their promise, Mk.XIV, we get "next gen" Spitfire with newer engine R-R Griffon.

This plane looks like older Spitfire, but is heavy, faster and thanks to oposite propeller rotation it has different flying qualities.

So, it is actually another plane even it looks like Mk.IXc.

[Talisman_VR]

ED is going to release Mk.IXc and this is true Spitfire with R-R Merlin engine as we know legendary Spitfire.

 

If VEAO one day release their promise, Mk.XIV, we get "next gen" Spitfire with newer engine R-R Griffon.

This plane looks like older Spitfire, but is heavy, faster and thanks to oposite propeller rotation it has different flying qualities.

So, it is actually another plane even it looks like Mk.IXc.

 

Jeffrey Quill, the famous Supermarine test pilot (also flew Spitfires in action during the Battle of Britain), said that the Mk IX and Mk XIV were the 2 outstanding examples in terms of taking opportunistic advantage of engine engineering developments to meet urgent operational demands. He also said that, in fact, in his opinion, the Mk XIV turned out to be the best of all the fighter variants of the Spitfire. He also goes on to say that, "furthermore, both marks became available in quantity precisely when they were most needed".

So we should be getting 2 great Spitfire models :thumbup:

 

Ref: Book Spitfire by Jeffrey Quill, IBSN 0-09-937020-4, chapter 20, page 221.

 

I think the most iconic version is the Mk 1a from the Battle of Britain period, but that does not match the current plane set and Normandy map as things stand at the moment.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited November 25, 2016 by 56RAF_Talisman
add ref.

[Pikey]

Of course it depends how you personally value your differences. Everyone has a unique motivation and you need to explore your own. The engine type was probably the most defining difference in performance and its indeed how wikipedia like to split up the differences, early merlin, late Merlin, and Griffon (notwithstanding other variants like Seafire and so on). Thus you need to decide if you need to be any faster than another variant which usually points towards competitve multiplayer as your motivaiton. Some people just like to explore the actual experience and will rate performance as irrelvant to the experience. Others like the procedural or the switchology. The differences to one person can be massive and to another utterly irrelevant. The wiki entries will give you a good start point. I dare not comment on if I think the differences are relatively large, as one other may find them different from my own viewpoint. It's fair to say that the two in production are similar, identical in armament, completely different in engine, similar in design (albeit for me utterly different so there you go).

[Tomsk]

Yeah to me they are both "true" Spitfires. The Mk XIV is likely to be a monster: faster than the 109K4 at most altitudes, climbs faster across the board, turns better, rolls better, better visibility and the hispanos are very nice cannons.

 

IMO if we want to play the historical accuracy game, the Spitfire LF Mk IX should be fighting the FW 190 A8 and Bf109 G6. The late war and rare Bf109 K4 and FW 190D9 should be facing the late war and rare Mk XIV ...

[WinterH]

I would also argue they look very different too. One has elliptical wings, the other has clipped wings (though, both may or may not consider in future allowing both options in modules). Canopies, elevators, nose section, and if I'm not mistaken air intakes etc all look different. Maybe the vertical tailfin too?

[Reflected]

Yeah to me they are both "true" Spitfires. The Mk XIV is likely to be a monster: faster than the 109K4 at most altitudes, climbs faster across the board, turns better, rolls better, better visibility and the hispanos are very nice cannons.

 

IMO if we want to play the historical accuracy game, the Spitfire LF Mk IX should be fighting the FW 190 A8 and Bf109 G6. The late war and rare Bf109 K4 and FW 190D9 should be facing the late war and rare Mk XIV ...

 

Oh boy, that is a can of worms. Just wait until Kurfurst sees this :music_whistling::D

 

(I agree, though)

[MiloMorai]

Oh boy, that is a can of worms. Just wait until Kurfurst sees this :music_whistling::D

 

(I agree, though)

 

He will begin by linking to this, http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

[Krupi]

Oh boy, that is a can of worms. Just wait until Kurfurst sees this :music_whistling::D

 

(I agree, though)

 

Haha :lol:

 

Unfortunately you are right!

 

 

I will leave this here for the inevitable argument :smilewink:

[Krupi]

He will begin by linking to this, http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

 

That is a horrible and totally unprovoked character assassination, it devalues his own website as well such a shame.

 

The irony is that the XIV was held up in the UK to fend off the flying bombs until late 1944 and by the time the K4 came to the front line in numbers the lack of fuel and air supremacy mitigated any kind of gains in performance.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Krupi

[Talisman_VR]

Yeah to me they are both "true" Spitfires. The Mk XIV is likely to be a monster: faster than the 109K4 at most altitudes, climbs faster across the board, turns better, rolls better, better visibility and the hispanos are very nice cannons.

 

IMO if we want to play the historical accuracy game, the Spitfire LF Mk IX should be fighting the FW 190 A8 and Bf109 G6. The late war and rare Bf109 K4 and FW 190D9 should be facing the late war and rare Mk XIV ...

 

Rare is a relative term perhaps in this instance. Personally, I would not use the term 'rare' for any aircraft that was produced in the many hundreds. Also, as Jeffrey Quill indicated, they were delivered in the numbers required at the time when they were need. If more had been needed then more would have been produced, particularly the Mk XIV, but with Allied air superiority and the LW very much on the back foot later in the war, then not so many thousands of air superiority fighters were needed. I think it is worth suggesting that it was the Axis that needed many thousands of the latest air superiority fighters (and super weapons) but could not produce enough.

Both the Mk IX and Mk XIV historically flew together and were in combat in the sky with the current DCS Axis opposition aircraft. The difference is that the Mk IX is in a league below the Mk XIV and the current DCS Axis opposition aircraft in terms of the technological time line. So, historically the Mk IX is a good fit for us, but when, without exception, all opposition for it on a MP combat competitive server is from the higher league in terms of the technological time line, then the combat competition element for PC pilots is somewhat skewed and skewed in favour of the Axis aircraft at the moment. Of course, not all Digital Combat Simulation customers want to engage in competitive digital combat, human vs human on MP servers, but it is something that attracts many DCS customers.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited November 25, 2016 by 56RAF_Talisman
Grammar.

[Talisman_VR]

The irony is that the XIV was held up in the UK to fend off the flying bombs until late 1944 and by the time the K4 came to the front line in numbers the lack of fuel and air supremacy mitigated any kind of gains in performance.

 

Not all XIV, but some used on anti 'diver' (V1 flying bomb) duties (including Mk IX Spit) and even then not exclusively. For example, the RAF used its aircraft very flexibly and in the same day multiple sorties could include both anti 'diver' missions and other types of operations across the English channel. Also, the anti 'diver' missions were rotated and shared amongst other aircraft types including the 25lbs Spitfire Mk IX, Mustang, Mosquito and Tempest; there were plenty of aircraft types to share the task. V1 attacks peaked for a limited period of about 2 months before tailing off.

 

Very much looking forward to the Mk IX Spitfire :thumbup:

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Tomsk]

Honestly I think it's hard to know the absolute truth on relative performance of the Bf109K4 vs the Spit Mk XIV. It was a long time ago, and the data is somewhat conflicting. However, I do think the 109 K4 vs Spit Mk XIV is a good and interesting match-up - whatever the exact numbers.

 

I do very much agree with Talisman. It was all a bit of a moot point by the end of 1944 / early 1945. The Luftwaffe was very much on the back foot and decidedly outnumbered. The difference in numbers doesn't tend to be replicated in multiplayer battles, so in some ways I would prefer to see earlier model 109s and 190s to match the P-51s and Spit Mk IXs. I say this as someone who enjoys flying both axis and allied fighters.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Tomsk

[jackd]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_variants:_specifications,_performance_and_armament#Dimensions,_performance_and_armament