Spit IIa

Resumee:

The Spit has a turn radius of 700 ft (about 215m) and the 109 slightly below 900 ft (275 m). The turn rate is at medium and high speed similar (slight advantage for spit at medium speed, tendency vice-versa for high speed). Good advantage for spit at low speed. Altitude loss higher for 109 during full circle (nearly 0 for spit at medium speed, 5° for 109 at medium speed)

Does not feel that way in game ...

[GF_Mastiff]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Resumee:

The Spit has a turn radius of 700 ft (about 215m) and the 109 slightly below 900 ft (275 m). The turn rate is at medium and high speed similar (slight advantage for spit at medium speed, tendency vice-versa for high speed). Good advantage for spit at low speed. Altitude loss higher for 109 during full circle (nearly 0 for spit at medium speed, 5° for 109 at medium speed)

Does not feel that way in game ...

no it doesnt I fly the spitIa and the 109s keep in a turn at medium speed the spit can not out turn them. or instant climb like the 109s E4s.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff

no it doesnt I fly the spitIa and the 109s keep in a turn at medium speed the spit can not out turn them. or instant climb like the 109s E4s.

In truth you need to realize that you piloting ability, or lack there of, are more likely the reason why you cant conquer the 109's.

You in game experience simply does not hold up to numbers, so if you have some charts post them, please! Otherwise your "The 109's are sooo much better than me" just show your a bad pilot.

[SEE]

How do you know he is a bad pilot? How would you react if you were told that you were a bad pilot because you cannot deal with a Spit Mk2? Pretty sure you would jump on the FM differences and state your case based on evidence but be a tad annoyed that someone simply tells you to fly better.

The current Spit Mk1a is not right in its specification or its FM. If people are discussing these issues then it is more constructive to debate them rather than impy posters are incompetent. It makes posters feel that their opinion is worthless on a baseless assumption. Piloting skills arguments are valid but not always helpful when used almost as an insult - hopefully you didn't mean to imply it in that sense.

The Clod Spit Mk1a is very capable at altitude and handles beautifully but the Bfs have had a lot of goodies in previous patches. Spit Mk1 jockeys are still stuck with a 'Boost Cut Out' that does nothing, a top speed of 245mph, a two speed prop and debatable Neg G modelling.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by SEE

How do you know he is a bad pilot? How would you react if you were told that you were a bad pilot because you cannot deal with a Spit Mk2? Pretty sure you would jump on the FM differences and state your case based on evidence but be a tad annoyed that someone simply tells you to fly better.

The current Spit Mk1a is not right in its specification or its FM. If people are discussing these issues then it is more constructive to debate them rather than impy posters are incompetent. It makes posters feel that their opinion is worthless on a baseless assumption.

The Clod Spit Mk1a is very capable at altitude and handles beautifully but the Bfs have had a lot of goodies in previous patches. Spit Mk1 jockeys are still stuck with a 'Boost Cut Out' that does nothing, a top speed of 245mph, a two speed prop and debatable Neg G modelling.

Id respond by posting a graph showing the under-modeled nature of the 109E-4.
Wait a minute...

And I agree that EVERYTHING in the game needs to have its FM reworked, including the current inaccurate Spits.

I don't know him or his abilities, whats more is that without something to back his opinion its pointless.
I mean how many times have we seen this in the past with IL2?
"Aircraft A is over-modeled because when I'm flying aircraft B it shoots me down every time!"
....

Really though, what worth is an opinion if you don't have any data to base it off of?

Trying to base the truth of an FM off of "Well it cant be right because I cant shoot them down in game" is ludicrous.
Saying that an aircraft is under-modeled in regard to a certain aspect (say 109E's top speed?) and then posting technical information showing the difference from the accepted in game performance of that aircraft is another thing entirely.

Now I did ask him to post his evidence, or something at all that backs his claim because were after the truth here, right?

And I have to admit I took a short temper with him because of his other "The 109 is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO uber!" threads. its just annoying.
Sorry for any offense, none intended.

[SEE]

It's Ok bud, I get a bit defensive regards the Spit v BF arguments, so apolgies if I over reacted to your post. I am sure you meant well.....

[CWMV]

I do the same, trust me.
I think both of our favorite aircraft need new FM's!