Stop saying that N plane is bad and circling around it like an eco chamber

Last match I went with Spitfire MK24 and a Re2005 that didn’t show up at all dived on me while i was boom and zooming a mustang, then could catch up after flying straight for over a minute and start shallow climbing for another minute. while i was clocking 600kmh ias. Why do people compare it to the 4.3 spitfire mk9 when it’s clearly not as slow as it?

Skill issue on my part for not looking around properly before diving (because i did)
I’ve had problems with re2005’s speed before, catching up my sea fury, my ta152h, my ta152c and now my spitfire mk24. I’ve kept reading people saying that the re2005 is very bad, that it can’t climb, that it’s not fast, that’s basically a 4.3 spitfire with mg151 and i’ve been convincing myself about it, but it doesn’t seem like what they say is true. There’s no way you can say something that catches one of the fastest props is “basically a spitfire mk9 early with mg151s” when a spitfire mk9 early is not fast at sea level because it’s airframe is draggy and lacks low altitude engine performance. Why do people keep comparing to it when it’s not? If it can catch up level flight to most “fast props” then it’s not slow. Should I have kept running til he snipes me? or eventually outpacing it at the expenses of cooking my engine? Stop talking bad about planes that aren’t bad. The Re2005 is not bad, the j6k1 is not bad, the n1k is not bad, the mirage 3c is not bad, the p59 is not bad The F7F IS bad, the Sea Fury IS bad, the Seafire FR47 IS bad, the J5n1 IS bad, the F3H IS bad, the Su17’s ARE bad. Stop it! Just stop it.

They look at stat cards only. Issue is the stat cards lie / omit major truths. Lile the spitfire Mk9 has got a better climb rate, but only till about 5k ft and that it only has a great turn rate at low alts.


Your enemy appearing is merely someone pouncing on you, and regardless of thier top speed on level flight at the standard altitude, it’s not limited to that speed.

Except they are pretty much equivalent in sea level top speed. Both top out at about 510 to 520 km/h.

And who exactly are you to determine what is and isn’t bad? Who are you to say that every one else is wrong but you are right?

You’re telling people to stop calling planes bad and “circling it around like an eco chamber” (it’s spelled echo, by the way), yet you’re trying to make your very own echo chamber right here.

The description of the event you’ve given is very clearly exaggerated. The Re.2005 has a top speed of 650 km/h at 7 km high, and as I’ve tested just now, barely does 500 km/h at sea level. There is absolutely no way it would’ve kept up even with the Ta 152 H, which even though it’s not fast either, it does go 70 km/h faster than the Re.2005 does at sea level.


If it’s diving it will, because it has pounced on them, from above and behind.

I’m going off of this statement here:

then could catch up after flying straight for over a minute and start shallow climbing for another minute. while i was clocking 600kmh ias.

If flying straight the Re.2005 simply would not have been able at all to catch up to a plane going this fast, even if originally with a speed advantage. It would lose speed very quickly because it is simply a slow plane.

1 Like

Selective quoting sucks @FlipAllTheTables … Diving on them, they’re not just casually cruising.

Which is why I wrote “even if originally with a speed advantage”… I did take the Re.2005 diving onto them in consideration.

Yet you ignore that speed advantage because you don’t think they can carry that speed, without bleeding it.

After a whole minute as described by Deskop_? Yeah, I am completely certain it would bleed any speed advantage it might possible have.

Edit: They said over a minute.

You do realize that my first comment is specifically saying that his description is “very clearly exaggerated”?..

I’m not saying that an Re.2005 can’t possibly get a drop on a plane like a Spitfire Mk.24. I’m saying that what he has stated can’t possibly be accurate to what actually happened.

Rico moments

the point is that the re2005 has much better linear retention than the 4.3 spitfire they compare it with.

Also, I don’t understand why do you say I’m creating my own echo chamber by posting an opinion I only myself have. Sure the re2005 is not the best, neither are these planes I said they’re not bad, but they’re not bad whatsoever. They’re usable, situational and ratty, but not as useless as people point them out to be. Kind of like La-9 situation. Stale performance but still usable.

Who compares it though?

If it’s player opinion, that can often be wrong anyway, in many ways…

Just look at the top speed issue, if they’re in a dive or at a different altitude that top speed is out… If they retain thier speed and momentum, in the pursuit then they can still keep up, as you need to accellerate, you’re not just at top speed…

Saying the series 0 needs to go down below 4.3 because a mk9 spitfire is “better” in certain situations is just stupid. In a turn fight below 500ft id probably always win vs a series 0 in a mk2 spitfire.

But until the much later spitfires, especially the griffon spitfires (that have a higher BR) they dont do well at altitude or in a climb. They are kings of the low alt turn fight not high alt energy fighting like most german and italian fighters.

So you need to judge the series 0 at its BR against a range of nations and targets. Should it be br6, probably not, but there must have been a reason for its BR raise. Gaijin does not raise or lower brs without reason.

Did you test this to actually reach this conclusion?

I just did. On both the Re.2005 and Spitfire Mk IX, it took roughly 33 seconds to go from 600 km/h to 540 km/h when at about 30 meters sea level (testing to lower than 540 km/h would take exponentially longer as they get closer to their sea level top speeds).

That all to say: no, it doesn’t.

At sea level, the spitfies are likely superior. Do it again at like 6000ft, and youll see the main weakness of the spitfires. Series 0 should climb and maintain a higher speed a lot better than the spitfire at alt

Tested both at 2 km (6561 ft). Both took 25 seconds to decelerate from 660 to 600 km/h. (I picked these speeds so the test isn’t too fast to where you can’t tell which one decelerates faster or too slow to where it takes ages, but I could do whatever is needed)

I should say that the Spitfire F Mk IX is specifically supposed to be a somewhat higher altitude Merlin Spitfire (or at least its engine is supposed to hold up better at higher altitudes).

The key difference is in acceleration and maintained top speed over an extended period of time. Any prop is probably going to have the same de-accleration i assume after a dive

I could be wrong. But whilst yes the mk9s were the first spitfires to get the superchargers, they were only 1 stage. They were better but still very much a work in progress.

In the 4.3 mk9 i tend to stick low, no more than 5-6k ft. Its not until the later spitfires. Like the LFMk9 that id climb. Only really in the Plagis Mk9 do i actually compete with the german/italian fighters at alt and i avoid the griffons because cba to fight jets.

Acceleration itself has actually very little to do with high speed deceleration. And “maintained top speed over an extended period of time” is just… top speed. And the Re.2005 and Spitfire F Mk IX have overall very similar top speeds.

Not really, lower high speed deceleration is correlated with the plane simply having a higher top speed. Again, the Re.2005 and Spitfire F Mk IX have very similar top speeds at a wide range of altitudes, so they end up with similar deceleration.

Video from “AdamTheEnginerd” that talks about this exact topic.

You are very wrong. Spitfire F Mk IX has a Merlin-61, equipped with a two stage, two speed supercharger. There’s a reason why it reaches its top speed at 8537 meters high (exactly 28k feet).
And all Spitfires had supercharger equipped Merlin engines, just that the superchargers started as single stage, single speed on the first Merlins, then upgraded to single stage, two speed, and then two stage, two speed.

LF Mk IXs have the Merlin 66 which specifically has a supercharger geared for low altitudes. LF quite literally stands for “Low-Altitude Fighter”.
Besides that the Spitfire F Mk XIVe (the first Griffon available) is 5.7 which is the same exact BR as the LF Mk IXs. You will face the exact same amount of jets.

1 Like