|
|
#11
08-31-2009, 06:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
 , and you've gone and given me another chance to talk about them The Spitfire IX is quicker than a Bf109F, and any model of G up to the G6-late/G10/G14. So really at the least, it is a better fighter than the F's and early-mid G's because it is more agile and faster than they are. It also handles better all round, especially at high speed. The XIV isn't quite as agile as the IX, but still easily out turns any Bf109 apart from the F (still slight advantage for the XIV). Its high speed handling is much better than any Bf109, and the top speed, climb and acceleration are at the very least equal to even the Bf109K. So you have a plane that has one of the best top speeds around, has a climb rate and acceleration second to none and is still has agility well above average for a late war fighter. Its pretty much the ultimate WWII energy fighter. It can outmanoeuvre by a considerable margin anything faster, of which there are only 2 maybe 3 prop engined fighters, it can outclimb any prop engined fighter of WWII, and its still agile enough to out turn the majority of mid-late war fighters. 
|
|
#12
08-31-2009, 06:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So how would the Mark XIV compare to a La-7?
Just want to give you another chance to talk about the spit!
|
|
#13
08-31-2009, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Hurricane was the ugly sister...as it happened the Hurricane had a much quicker turn around repair-wise and was quicker to mend by a factor of 10! So after a few nails and 2by4by2by4bee it was back up kraut plugging when Spitz were still at the metal-shop. ________ Magic flight launch box Last edited by juz1; 02-24-2011 at 08:18 AM.
|
|
#14
08-31-2009, 07:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Okay, head to head with the Spitfire MkXIV and La7. The La-7 is primarily a low altitude fighter. It is very quick low down, even quicker than the MkXIV. This advantage hold up to around 7,500ft, after this the MkXIV catches up and the overtakes the La-7s top speed. Climb rate is always in the Spitfire's favour, but increasingly so with altitude. The Spitfire XIV is much nicer to fly, and can be held on its limits for a lot longer than the La-7. The La-7 is a pretty good high speed turner, but don't try slow, tight turning fights in it. The XIV is almost as good at high speed and much better if the fight slows down. Armament is pretty much equal, with 3 20mm cannon for the La-7 and 2 20mm and either 2 .50cals or 4 .303s for the Spitfire. If flown (as you should be doing ) in the cockpit view the Spitfire has much better visibility. Overall, I think the Spitfire XIV has only a small advantage low down, but this grows with altitude and by 15,000ft the Spitfire should be well in control of the fight. The only time a La-7 will have an advantage is low down, if the pilot can keep the fight moving very fast. Even here if the Spitfire pilot can slow the fight down even slightly the similar top speeds and excellent armament of the Spitfire will be able to force the La-7 onto the defensive if La-7 pilot tries to open up a gap and get some speed back. A XIV on the defensive can always lose a La-7 with a tight spiralling climb, because the Spitfire can outclimb the La-7 and as the climb slows down the La-7 won't be able to hold on as low as the Spitfire with its poor low speed manoeuvrability. Once the La-7 breaks out the Spitfire can use its acceleration and good long range guns to nail the La-7 very fast unless it gets a lot of separation very quickly.
|
|
#15
08-31-2009, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The main reasons IMO, they are gorgeous to look at and sound amazing.
Scientific..no but it works for me.
|
|
#16
08-31-2009, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
According to RAF pilots during the Battle of Britain, the general consensus was that although most pilots preferred to fly the Spitfire, everyone agreed that the Hurricane was a better weapons platform.
|
|
#17
08-31-2009, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In my opinion, it is the most beautiful thing ever created by man. Coupled with the greatest engine ever and its bound to be popular!
|
|
#18
08-31-2009, 11:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
hurricane is an amazing plane, it was also the most versatile aircraft of the war and served in every theatre!! continued bbeing built until the end of the war also. A certain role needed doing...the hurri did it. An amazing bird.
The hurricane was also used by finland, before the decided to ally with germany, and went up against the red army. No hurricane on hurricane action that i know of though.
|
|
#19
08-31-2009, 11:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
battle of britain 1940.
spitfire v hurricane Hurricane was not as fast, but it could out turn a spit and a 109!! it was a more stable gun platform also, and could take far more battle damage. Due to the wider landing gear it was considerably easier to land than the spit. The hurricane due to being made differently to the spit (stretched fabric) meant it was easier and quicker to repair and get back into a fight. In my eyes, the hurricane is much nicer looking than the spit!! she's a beauty. If someone offered me right now a spitfire or a hurricane then i'd take the hurricane without even having to think about it.
|
|
#20
08-31-2009, 11:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
but u have to admit the spitfire is 1 of the things what makes us true brits
the spitfire mkV is my fave british fighter and in my personal opinion the hurricane was only used as a fighter because of desperation and not enough spitfire's the late dive bomber hurricane variants were brilliant though
|
 |
|
|
It still had the Merlin engine, and even though slower, was a good opponent against 109F and G's. Even some of the 190s were outclassed in some ways by it. The Griffon was a good engine, but it just lacked the feel that the Spitfire had. 
Linear Mode
