DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

[Foul Ole Ron]

If ED are doing 2 different wings there'll be 2 different FMs. I don't think they would implement both wing types if it wasn't technically feasible and was just a cosmetic feature.

[harf4ng]

Dude, I think you are :huh: ...

 

I can't wait to feel the wind on my face and smell the leather ..... well I've got a desk fan and an old leather jacket I can wear.. so.. so there! :lookaround:

 

You're flying with the canopy opened? :)

We're not talking about first world war planes ;)

[MegOhm_SD]

Lets see...i have my Spitfire key in the WWII Kickstarter section. I have the FW 190, the Spitfire and the Normany Map all for the small sum I donated. What a great deal for that price.

 

Id just like to thank ED for making this all good. Kudos to them!

 

Cant wait til Dec 16th to put the Spit through its paces.

Hopefully, Normandy drops not too long after!

 

<S>

Edited November 4, 2016 by MegOhm_SD

[rrohde]

No. because it's a new release from ED. The L-39C/ZA was their last release, and that is also awesome. Just imagine how awesome an icon of aviation will compare to that!

 

+1 :thumbup:

[MegOhm_SD]

You're flying with the canopy opened? :)

We're not talking about first world war planes ;)

 

Why not?

 

Sometimes when doing casual flying and siteseeing in "props" I fly with the canopy cracked open. And on takeoff and landing. I have seen films of many WWII Pilots doing the same (probably so they could make a quick exit if necessary). I enjoy the engine sounds and wind buffeting in that config. Whatever happens to trip your trigger or float your boat is fair game and individual preference. So no, these are not WWI aircraft. Some just need to get out of the "box" and explore/enjoy the subtleties.

 

So yeah you bet I will crack that canopy open on my Spit when I shake her down. I want to hear that baby purrrr!!!

 

:pilotfly:

Edited November 4, 2016 by MegOhm_SD

[Buzzles]

From Pman (VEAO Team), it could be a problem to have both flight models in one module:

 

[Pman's quote]

 

So, bets are open...

 

That's not a relevant quote though, VEAO are a third party and have to go via ED's API to talk with DCS, plus that quote was from mid-2014, over 2 years ago.

 

ED are ED, if they needed to change things to make it happen they could and probably have :)

[Brigg]

Because it was beautiful, iconic, and one of the best fighters of the Second World War.

 

+2 Although the spit isn't my favourite ww2 fighter, I am however so happy we had it :thumbup:

[Captain Orso]

You're flying with the canopy opened? :)

We're not talking about first world war planes ;)

Just look down and inch or so...

.

.

.

.

:D

[No.401_Wolverine]

From Pman (VEAO Team), it could be a problem to have both flight models in one module:

 

 

 

So, bets are open...

 

 

Yikes. Hope I didn't open a can of worms on this one. I'm just thrilled we've got the IX to look forward to in December, clipped wing or not.

 

Also, very nice to see 401 Squadron get a mention in the product info!

[NineLine]

From Pman (VEAO Team), it could be a problem to have both flight models in one module:

 

 

 

So, bets are open...

 

I am gonna put my money on ED on this one ;)

 

They do similar with the 190 and 109 and the contents of the MW tank, so I am sure they have an idea how to do it.

[msalama]

I cant imagine Yo-Yo allowing it to be just cosmetic

 

Can't be. Hey Sith, this is DCS innit? ;)

[Kev2go]

Hi I really like the P-51 but holding off using DCS for now until the Normandy release

 

Why would I want the spitfire?? am I missing something?

 

 

because its not as overrated as the P fiddy 1:megalol:

Edited November 5, 2016 by Kev2go

[msalama]

Why would I want the spitfire??

 

Well I bought it immediately yesterday, and I don't even fly fighters since I'm a groundpounder. But the Spitfire is such an iconic aircraft that one just has to have it...

[Solty]

because its not as overrated as the P fiddy 1:megalol:

:thumbdown:

[adrianstealth]

Look forward to a P-51 vs. Spitfire user experience review

[westr]

Both brilliant, Mustang would not have the combat record it held by being overrated and its range made it a true winner for the job it set out to do, Spitfire held its own against brilliant fighters whilst being outnumbered during the BOB, and always had phenomenal turning performance.

Love them both.

 

That brute <<<<< on my Avatar btw had a wonderful combat record, and isn't talked about half as much as the F4U.

Edited November 5, 2016 by westr

[Captain Orso]

I am gonna put my money on ED on this one

 

They do similar with the 190 and 109 and the contents of the MW tank, so I am sure they have an idea how to do it.

 

I can't take credit for this, but...

 

Hey guys,

if you click on the section planes of the DCS main site, you can read "Selectable wing option of elliptical or cropped end (for final release)" in the features of the spit

[Kev2go]

Both brilliant, Mustang would not have the combat record it held by being overrated and its range made it a true winner for the job it set out to do, Spitfire held its own against brilliant fighters whilst being outnumbered during the BOB, and always had phenomenal turning performance.

Love them both.

 

That brute <<<<< on my Avatar btw had a wonderful combat record, and isn't talked about half as much as the F4U.

 

well the spitfire were getting is not a BOb variant. in bob it was the mk1 and mk2 that was used. Were getting a LF MK9 a considerably more powerfull version which appeared in March 1943

 

p51, yea its arguably overated as a fighter, because its true advantage would have been the Range, and high altitude performance, which is important for its bomber escort role, and therefore best on a stragic role. Combined with the fact the Lufwaffe was outnumbered, and drastically runnning out of experienced pilots by 44. Thats why the P51 fared well. but as a Skirmish fighter, its not the best of ww2 . Fw190 D9 and the Bf109 K4 offer better raw accelerating performance, latter of which also offers better maneuverability. Considering in DCS we dont fly at 30- 35 thousand feet escorting bombers, p51s dont really shine where they did IRL. we have mostly skirmish dogfights, at not such insane altitudes. Mostly Mid level - low level.

 

Maybe when it gets upgraded 8th AF setting with higher grade fuel and ability to WEP with 75Hg itl be closer contemporary, but right now i find the 109 k4 and dora superior aircraft to fly for a2a combat.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Kev2go

[westr]

Of course but the airframe of the Spitfire was modified throughout the war, but didn't alter a great deal until the Griffon engine mks. I still feel the Mustang lacks a little power in DCS, having said that I can still be successful against the 109 in the sim certainly the 190 even at lower altitudes.

Edited November 5, 2016 by westr

[NeilWillis]

The Spitfire and Mustang comparison is hardly a fair one. The role the Mustang filled was as a long range, high altitude escort. In that role, it did it's job very well indeed. Before long range fighters the bombers were very vulnerable, and the Mustang provided the cover they needed.

 

If the Spitfire could have carried out that role, there would never have been a requirement for the Mustang, so clearly, there can't be a like for like comparison can there?

 

So, Spitfire - great for tooling around over Normandy, and Mustang - great for escorting deep penetration bomber raids to Schweinfurt and Berlin.

 

Comparing their performance in any other respect misses the point entirely doesn't it?

[Kev2go]

The Spitfire and Mustang comparison is hardly a fair one. The role the Mustang filled was as a long range, high altitude escort. In that role, it did it's job very well indeed. Before long range fighters the bombers were very vulnerable, and the Mustang provided the cover they needed.

 

If the Spitfire could have carried out that role, there would never have been a requirement for the Mustang, so clearly, there can't be a like for like comparison can there?

 

So, Spitfire - great for tooling around over Normandy, and Mustang - great for escorting deep penetration bomber raids to Schweinfurt and Berlin.

 

Comparing their performance in any other respect misses the point entirely doesn't it?

 

p51 is a bit more verstile il admit, even if not as good in the typical dogfight role. itl be a better mud mover, than the spit, even though neither are meant to be dedicated for that role.. x6 hvars and x2 500 lbs on the 51 is pretty decent. . Spitfire was generally limited to 3 bombs. ( x2 250lbs bombs on the wings, and 1 500 lbs bomb on the fuselage)

Edited November 5, 2016 by Kev2go

[Davee]

The Spitfire and Mustang comparison is hardly a fair one. The role the Mustang filled was as a long range, high altitude escort. In that role, it did it's job very well indeed. Before long range fighters the bombers were very vulnerable, and the Mustang provided the cover they needed.

 

If the Spitfire could have carried out that role, there would never have been a requirement for the Mustang, so clearly, there can't be a like for like comparison can there?

 

So, Spitfire - great for tooling around over Normandy, and Mustang - great for escorting deep penetration bomber raids to Schweinfurt and Berlin.

 

Comparing their performance in any other respect misses the point entirely doesn't it?

 

+1

[NineLine]

The Mustang will be awesome to drag the 109s down low so the Spits can give them black eyes ;)

[GrapeJam]

Fw190 D9 and the Bf109 K4 offer better raw accelerating performance, latter of which also offers better maneuverability.

 

Always found it funny when people compare the D9 and the K4 to the 1 year older Mustang variant, instead of the contemporary F/G/J. The fact that the D, with historically accurate boost setting, was more than a match for the new K4 and D9 despite them being 1 year newer, and thus was considered sufficient and the F/G/J were not rushed into service, says something about the Mustang.

 

Overrated? :lol:

Edited November 6, 2016 by GrapeJam

[NeilWillis]

Another seriously important factor regarding a like for like comparison is that no matter how good the K4 and D9 may have been, sheer weight of numbers had already tipped the scale irrevocably in favour of the Allies. They'd need to be 10 times as good as a P-51D to even make an impression on the total Allied air supremacy that had been achieved.

 

Like for like, they might be excellent, and that is the level of engagement we'll be concerned with. So the biggest influences are not there, and 1 to 1 I suggest the P-51D and Spitfires will be struggling to compete. Much like the armour. Superior, but unavailable in sufficient numbers to take advantage of their strengths.