You might either look for a historically orientated layout or for a fair orientated layout. Choose one of the two, the first gives the comfort of neglecting any long discussions. ;)

I hve been fighting the Spit IIa in a 109 at low alt
I hve been invoved in tight turn fight with a Spit Ia in a nimble G50
I hve seen myself B&Zing a Spit Ia in a hurri (mistaken it for a 109)
I have been chased at high alt by a climbing Spit in my 109E3

I can tell you one thing : in none of the above case did I felt like fighting a real plane.

Everything I did was matched on an oddly manner only by the strange FM of the thing.

You can tell what ever you like but this has nothing in common with a spit or a real plane. Hence its only presence would be the ground of thousands speculations and debates.

TC I don't understand any of that mate apart from what you were in and what you fought...please explain again?

Are you saying the Spit doesn't feel like a plane or something like that?

~S~

A lot of this fair play argument is all to do with altitude and many players tendency to engage at low alt.

If you read the Autobiographies of many of the Pilots who flew the Spits, during and after the BoB, you get a better sense of what each of these ac were capable of.

Discipline was a key factor for pilots on both sides. In many accounts, Spit Pilots would see the BFs above them. If the numbers were evenly matched and the BF pilots thought they had no elemenent of suprise they would refrain from dropping down to engage. The BF Pilot knew where and under what circumstances he had the edge....at Altitude or by suprise and were disciplined to engage when they had the advantage of both.

The BFs currently modelled have better engine performance than the Spit Mk2 at 18K+. Most of the ac have problems with FM and that is where the argument lies.

If one day CloD goes Eastern Front with Yaks.......?

I watched Klem and Stryker (Klem will know the player? ) engage in a mock combat (BF v Spit2) at around 20K, Co E, to assess both. They seemed evenly matched but maybe Klem will give his conclusions. Even with Ventrillo comms I had real problems keeping eyes on both because of the separation as they were split-assing at very high speeds.

Yes. It seems to be to a lesser extent than in the old Il2 but it still have very debatable E losses. Hence the tight turn and so on.

In a few word If you love the historical Spitfire, ban the thing we hve in game !

If CoD devs wants that we have an easy mount for young players, none here wld be against that idea (my guess) but they hve to call it a NoobFire or a paint it in a special color (Light green - a GreenFire ?) that we don't feel lost or disappointed by what is alrdy a remarkable game.

What a load of BS.

JD
AKA_MattE

We had two in il2:1946 one called the la7 and another the spit mk9 +25lb :-P ;)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Some interesting gen at the above link. Some will have already seen, but it is food for thought me thinks.

Happy landings,

Not sure about that. I haven't flown a spitfire and even if you do you'd probably not go all out like in a fight that may cost you your life. So we can only rely on some basic numbers.

Regarding the balance issue there is no solution though. There is NO balance. That was the point of the war. I listed all the variables (at least a good amount of them) and all of these aren't anything we could fix in the game.

So for true dogfighting on even ground add support for flying in the same planes against each other. And by support I mean don't take out all the planes or screw the FM but actually give dogfighters a way to fly against an equal opponent - aside from their own skill.

For co-op and all the other realism servers you can just add the planes the server admins want. Also the community can eventually come up with some great dynamic campaign stuff that either:
- goes the route of realism and does that
- or a little fiction and fairness and actually gives the "losing" side opportunities to fly with better planes / ammo to make the game more fun


And seeing how this thread progressed that far I seriously think it's time to think about solutions to the underlying problem. And tuning the FM is NOT a solution I believe.