I mean like the 6.0 onwards. But i just use the plagis because why not use a premium that has equal stats to the tt griffons at 5.7
As for the rest of it. Maybe i got my facts wrong but none the less. Comparing the 4.3 mk9 to the 6.0 series 0 is a stupid thing to be doing. At altitude the series 0 will win, but at low alt, even a mk2 would probably win.
Should the series 0 be 6.0 i dont know. But there are very good reasons why the 4.3 mk9 is at 4.3. Mainly its poor performance above about 5-6k ft. But if you are turn fighting any spitfire then you are probably going to loose
Best thing to do is to stop listening to people on the forums, and go play all the vehicles for yourself, and form your own opinions. then when someone says something that you know to be false because you have played it, you can know they dont know what they are talking about, and ignore them.
The Spitfire F Mk IX’s first supercharger gear is geared to reach peak horsepower at about 3.5 km… That’s 11.5k ft. In a climb from 0 to 11.5k ft, the engine will gain horsepower. And again, it’s two speeds, so two supercharger gears.
Then you clearly have never actually flown the Mk9, because its shit at alt. And is still the worst possible excuse in the world of the Series 0 to be sub 4.3. because its vastly superior to any 4.3 even the Mk9 when you play it right. If you are turn fighting a spitfire, even a mk2 then you are dead
I’ve flown it more than you have. 33 games in Realistic compared to your 19. Much superior stats as well.
You can run back all my comments ever in this entire forum and the old forum and never once have I stated that it should be 4.3, much less that it should be lower.
However, that it has aspects that are comparable to a 4.3 plane? It does.
You have compared our game time in a single aircraft. at a BR i dont really play. If I play ARB, then its Mk2, Mk5 or Plagis Mk9 spitfire. not the 4.3 spitfire.
Most of the time these days though im in ASB because of stupid things like aircraft being way too low in BR because of people complaining. aircraft that should never meet, are at the same BR.
But if you want to play those cards.
You have 27 games in a Mk2 spitfire. I have 132
You have 17 games in a LF mk9. I have 97
You have more than me in the Mk5s to early mk9s, because I dont really enjoy those BRs. If either of us unqualified to be discussing spitfires in ARB, its you. Now I basically never see itallian fighters in a 5.7 match, because the MM is basically only ever vs germany or with germany and italy. Never actually fight italy. But based upon stats. The Series 0 should have no issues at that BR, if flown and fought like any Axis fighter of the equivalent tier.
Oh, that stat card. Need I remind you that you wrote “Then you clearly have never actually flown the Mk9”.
How else can I show that I have flown the Spitfire F Mk IX? There is literally no other way of doing that than to show my profile statistics, which just so happen to be better than yours when it to the game mode that is relative to this topic, in this specific plane.
This is very much entirely on you for even trying to make that argument in the first place.
Those two Spitfires are completely meaningless to the topic at hand. The LF Mk IX have only been mentioned in passing by me simply correcting you that it is supposed to specifically be a low altitude version, and the Mk II only mentioned specifically by you and no-one else.
We aren’t discussing all Spitfires, and no-one here (besides you, just now) has even made the claim that one is more qualified or unqualified of discussing all Spitfires in general inside ARB. You’re diverting from the actual subject of discussion, a basic fallacy.
We are discussing a single Spitfire and comparing it to the Re.2005, and this is one Spitfire that you have shown time and time again to have wrong knowledge about, and one where I do have more experience than you to discuss in ARB, even if my experience is still quite light.
sure the re2005 would bleed all the speed, but not instantly, and as a matter of fact a spitfire mk9 cannot hold 600 or ACCELERATE after diving. In fact the way to defeat a 4.3 spitfire is by outrunning it by building up kinetic energy. The 4.3 spitfire will reach 700 in a dive and go back to 560 in less than a minute after flying straight below 600 meters. The Re2005 in question did not bleed that much speed at all, as for I could keep 600 IAS after losing some kinetic energy and the re2005 was catching at a constant rate to the point of reaching out to 800m away while i was still on 600 ias. That is called “being faster”. There have been other times in which i was on sea fury and the re2005 would catch nonetheless even during a climb while i shallow dive at 600 something. Or on Ta-152C. Re-2005 might be slow but has great linear retention because it’s airframe isn’t as draggy as other stuff out there.
I’ve already tested your claim of the Re.2005 having much better LER than the Spitfire F Mk IX, and the results showed it has basically the same LER. What your entire reply has shown is that you are very capable of entirely ignoring what people have already said.
But for the sake of the argument I’ll test the deceleration of both planes from 700 to 560 km/h at 600 meters, with both planes having all modifications unlocked, on min fuel, with TAS as the speed. And this time I’ve looked at the frames of the videos just to get a time accuracy that’s roughly 0.03 seconds.
Test 1
600 km/h
560 km/h
Re.2005
21.36 s
42.23 s
Spitfire F Mk IX
21.26 s
43.10 s
Test 2
600 km/h
560 km/h
Re.2005
21.44 s
42.64 s
Spitfire F Mk IX
21.26 s
42.86 s
I ran two tests to minimize the possibility of the results from the first test just being a fluke.
In a way, you are right. The Spitfire F Mk IX does decelerate from 700 km/h to 600 in less than a minute when below or at 600 meters. So will the Re.2005.
But here you are horribly wrong, stop trying to push this as if it is fact.
Very basic example is the Me 163’s stat card which says a top speed of only 945 km/h top speed at 4.5 km but you can do over 970 km/h (with max fuel) at sea level.
Things like “climb rate” I dont know what its based upon, but many aircraft have different climb rates based upon factors like altitude. Early spitfires, like the Mk1a boast a climb rate of 18.7 m/s . Higher than a lot of aircraft, but that climb rate drops off rapidly as you climb.
So its not a “lie” but its a “half truth” in that instance, a high rate of climb doesnt mean you can actually climb all that high, all that fast. Just means at “X” alt you can climb reasonably well.
You also have things like “Max Speed at X Alt” its not wrong, but rarely that helpful, and sometimes doesnt make a lot of sense. Tornado MFG, Tornado ASSTA1 and Tornado IDS (Italy) are all identical airframes. Same engines most importantly. They have 3 different stat cards, displaying different information on all 3, Other than “maybe” some slight differences with fuel loads, they should be identical stat cards,.
What would be good, is to overhaul it, where you could see the stats based upon things like alt and fuel load and adjust the slider to see the results. I think a lot of players would benefit from having information like that available
Making things ‘easier’ for some to see, doesn’t actually help as much as it will end up with a muddling of the stats and the reasons on why they’re used IRL in these terms as well.
Much the same as the turn time misinterpretation being a flat turn not a rolled, and at the cruising speed, at a height, and all those ‘technicalities’ it’s where knowledge and experience come into it.
Whilst it’s a common thing to be confused on, once people have understanding of it (And not just a ‘it’s wrong/broken’ reasoning) it comes to be more accurate than you’d think.
Even further to the point, you get further into it, an d you end up on the Manual Engine Control feathering props, closing radiators and absolutely thrashing everything.
my guy i’ve tried to dive on the spitfire mk9 with a friend on re2005 and the re2005 lost energy slowlier than the spit, we eventually hit the same 550 mark after some time flying straight
You did a test that can’t be recreated (you don’t give a single specification of how the test worked or the speeds achieved), unreliable, not rigorous, and you don’t even have any test results. All in all your comment here is meaningless.
I tested both planes individually twice just to get two completely different sets of test results. I used the test drive with test drive FM tools to reliably spawn the plane at the speed and altitude necessary. I recorded videos of the flights and then saw the exact frames at which different speeds were achieved. And even with fluctuations in the instructor, which make keeping the plane in a perfect straight line difficult, those different sets of test results still corroborate each other.
Unless you can actually make a test that matches or surpasses mine when it comes to how rigorous, reliable and recreatable it is, every word you say is simply meaningless in comparison.
Imagine the people that made LK-99 simply saying it is a room temperature superconductor and not giving any instruction on what it actually was or how to produce it. That is you in this situation.
Here’s something else that is absolutely ridiculous that you’ve said about the Re.2005 (even though you yourself have admitted to never having flown it).
The current Re.2005 outclimbing the Bf 109 K-4 is a completely ridiculous claim, one you do not have any actual test evidence to back up, yet you still say it as fact when in reality the Bf 109 K-4 outclimbs the Re.2005 so badly that it isn’t even a competition.
While you tell people to “stop saying that N plane is bad”, I tell you to stop talking and throwing around misinformation on a plane that you yourself have no idea how it performs.
I do not know a single good player that even slightly relies on the stat card of a plane, precisely because it is inaccurate (like top speed in some cases) or the values are too niche and specific to be useful (turn rate). Most if not all will rely on how the plane feels and flies to decide what to do in the moment.
On a side note, “prop feathering” means that you turn the blades of the prop so as to not create any drag or thrust. It is just a feature that allows for better gliding when on low fuel or with no engine. It has very little, if any, battle applications.