[danger]

dont you think we have enough spitfires???????????????

[GBrutus]

dont you think we have enough spitfires???????????????

No.

[I/JG27_Waggel]

I have the opinion that some Spitfires are still needed. There are still some historical planeset gaps.

[danger]

well in my opinion there are many other planes that are more than needed for historical play.and as we have some 24 spits that maybe the emphasis could be thrown more towards the least looked at airforce.

[GBrutus]

well in my opinion there are many other planes that are more than needed for historical play.and as we have some 24 spits that maybe the emphasis could be thrown more towards the least looked at airforce.

While there are quite a few variants in this game many of them are not truely representative of their historical counterparts. Waggel suggested the need for an early Mk IX as a match up for the Fw190A3 that he and others here are in the process of creating. If you read through the thread you would know this. It's only natural that people will want to work on areas of this game which they have a particular interest in. After all, these mods require quite alot of time and research and are made by people in their precious free time. If there is a specific aircraft that you think has been neglected or omitted then maybe you should start a new discussion. :wink:

[Zorin]

well in my opinion there are many other planes that are more than needed for historical play.and as we have some 24 spits that maybe the emphasis could be thrown more towards the least looked at airforce.

You have to keep in mind that we have existing 3D models that can be modified and a good reference situation, which are conditions that aid the creation of new subtypes.

The time it would take to create completely new planes, which might be needed, takes a multiple of time involved.

And you should remember that Waggel is not a guru, so he doesn't deliberately keep his labour away from the projects like the Lancaster or what have you. So be grateful for any addition

[danger]

well in my opinion there are many other planes that are more than needed for historical play.and as we have some 24 spits that maybe the emphasis could be thrown more towards the least looked at airforce.

While there are quite a few variants in this game many of them are not truely representative of their historical counterparts. Waggel suggested the need for an early Mk IX as a match up for the Fw190A3 that he and others here are in the process of creating. If you read through the thread you would know this. It's only natural that people will want to work on areas of this game which they have a particular interest in. After all, these mods require quite alot of time and research and are made by people in their precious free time. If there is a specific aircraft that you think has been neglected or omitted then maybe you should start a new discussion. :wink:

lol, i have tried, but met with brick walls and hostility all the way mate ie; locking my thread. i am no kid and am fully aware of the work that goes into making these planes, if i could do it myself i would but unfortunately i am not as talented as some on here but...
as i have stated before, this mod has opened up loads of planes for all forces except 1, the Japanese. for just one example, the b-29 was combated with the KI-44, the KI-44 could fly higher 11,200m (36,745 ft.) and faster376 mph (605 km/h) than the Ki-84 and was a 1942 plane with Two 37mm Cannons and Two 20mm Cannons could carry 220 lb (100 kg) bombs and was later known as a B-29 killer , there was 8 versions of this impressive machine. that is just one example.

there are 6 main fighter planes and 12 bomber/night fighters ( which was incidentally the best japanese stratagy) that has been left out that would SERIOUSLY improve the PTO.

that is why i get a tad frustrated with seeing 20 odd spitrires and requests for more

[danger]

well in my opinion there are many other planes that are more than needed for historical play.and as we have some 24 spits that maybe the emphasis could be thrown more towards the least looked at airforce.

You have to keep in mind that we have existing 3D models that can be modified and a good reference situation, which are conditions that aid the creation of new subtypes.

The time it would take to create completely new planes, which might be needed, takes a multiple of time involved.

And you should remember that Waggel is not a guru, so he doesn't deliberately keeps his labour away from the projects like the Lancaster or what have you. So be grateful for any addition

ohh, i am grateful but if u read the above post you will see the frustration

[TinyTim]

I'd like to throw in my 2 cents if I may. I fully understand you danger, and I'd love to see the Ki-44 in game, more than any of the spits. I'd gladly trade majority of spit versions we have now for a single version of Tojo. However... people are doing this during their free time, for free. If somebody wanted to build 10 new flyable versions of the Lerche, who am I to oppose him? It's his wish, he is doing it voluntarily, during his free time, and he is offering the job once it is finished to all of us for free, asking absolutely nothing in return. It's nothing but a gift... Complaining about it is like winning a lottery, and then complaining about the bounty being paid in dollars instead of euros.

[danger]

I'd like to throw in my 2 cents if I may. I fully understand you danger, and I'd love to see the Ki-44 in game, more than any of the spits. I'd gladly trade majority of spit versions we have now for a single version of Tojo. However... people are doing this during their free time, for free. If somebody wanted to build 10 new flyable versions of the Lerche, who am I to oppose him? It's his wish, he is doing it voluntarily, during his free time, and he is offering the job once it is finished to all of us for free, asking absolutely nothing in return. It's nothing but a gift... Complaining about it is like winning a lottery, and then complaining about the bounty being paid in dollars instead of euros.

here we go again........ i am NOT complaining, its just frustration. and i will not keep explaining this as i have many times in my posts where people dont understand. i would gladly do the job myself but i am not one of the " gifted " ones as i dont understand the maths lol., if i was, there would be all 18 historical japanese planes required to fill the set, ready for all to fly.

[Davew]

dont you think we have enough spitfires???????????????

No.
And the ones we do have aren't right.

You talk about the PTO, and the Ki-44. That aircraft entered service in '42, was disliked by the pilots, and was used in relatively small numbers (and was butt ugly, but thats beside the point). The version you speak of is the Ki-44 3b which was the last one produced out of a total run of just over 1000 aircraft. Plus, they were just about exclusively used for home defence, but Il2 models front line service.
The Ki-84 was rated as one of the best fighters in the pacific theatre. over 3000 were produced, and contrary to your assertion, it was faster than the Ki-44. 392mph vs 376mph. The Ki-84 was also a front line fighter. That's probably why it's in the game and the Shoki isn't.

But compared to the Spitfire with 20351 units produced, which served on every front of the war, was one of the two most important allied aircraft in the ETO and which is currently incorrect in terms of its FM, neither of those two aircraft are especially significant... For someone that looks for historical play, would you not like this aircraft to be correct?

I'm not saying that the Ki-44 shouldn't be developed for the game. What I am suggesting is that modders may not be off in their priorities if they want to fix the Spitfire, at least not in my opinion.
I am also suggesting that my opinion of what should or shouldnt be done doesnt matter, neither does yours. We aren't modders and since the modders are working for free to improve our game it is more than a little demanding to enter a thread and immediately start commenting that there are other things that should be done than what the modder chooses to work on.

How about help them rather than criticise them?

[GBrutus]

I decided to extract some files and see if it's possible to change the cannon blisters to the larger C wing type. Unfortunately, it's not possible to do this without reverting to the Mk Vb cannon fairings also. This is because the wings are devided in 3 parts - inner, middle and outer - and the cannon blister and the cannon fairing share the same part of the 3D model.



The early carburettor intake is easy enough to add but for some reason this also changes the windshield/canopy to the Mk Vb version. Shown below is another problem with the C wing - the Vb oil cooler is also part of the inner wing 3d model as with the cannon blister and fairing.



One other thing I looked at are the elavators which I'm unsure about but I think they should be the earlier design as the early Mk IX is essentially a MK V airframe. Again, easy enough to change.



Anyway, it's pretty late and I'm supposed to be up for work in a couple of hours so that's all I've been able to do so far. Of course, Ranwers has an early Spit IX mod and he'll most likely know how to address the issues I've found.

Basically we need the rudder, elevators, cannon blisters and carburttor intake from the Mk V while we want to keep the symmetrical radiators, cannon fairings and canopy from the Mk IX.

[Redcanuck]

Excellent start GBrutus :!:

[Redcanuck]

@ Redcanuck:

The dark blue line merlin 61 performancedata is +- 5 km/h the same thing that I have found in one book. The corner points are the same. I will calculate the other perfomance data into metrical system and than I will make a first graphic. Perhaps we still have other sources to compare.

I'll keep digging around

[Davew]

@ Davew:

Thank you for your post. You forgot the tea bag modification in connection with the 4 hispanos and the bomb at a Spit VIII. I never whould write the word disatvantage regarding to the 4 hispanos :-D.


Performance data belongs to which engine? The performance over alt 65 looks like HF and at sealevel very poor. The best thing is always a graphic or several achievement basic data. Otherwise you draw the performance line throught performance breaks down caused by compressor change.

Ooops, bad English, I hope you will understand :roll:

Yeah, sory about the performance data thing. I tried to put it into a table, but it didnt want to work. And I cant scan in the graphs that i have here.

But as for the data itself, I'm not 100% sure, but i believe it relates to the Merlin 63. I haven't found anything that compares performance from a 61 engined Spit to a 63 engined Spit. With 160hp less it should make a bit of a difference, but it would likely only be a couple of mph, say about 405mph for the Merlin 61 Spit?

But it is either the Merlin 61 or 63 - The 66 and 70 produced quite different results, the LF Spit was a good bit faster at low alt, while the HF had a top speed of around 415 mph at 30000' or so I think. Don't quote me on those though, they're just off the top of my head.

I've got about 20 books here on the thing, it's probably just a matter of finding the info. I'll keep looking.

(Removing the comparison)
F.Mk IX
Merlin 61 or 63
1560 hp(61)
1690 hp(63)

Length
31