Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Please keep in mind that A2A is not equal to real life flight tests. These comparisons say and mean nothing.

That is not to say that the CoD data is correct but who knows about the truthfulness of A2A data.

Just because A2A claims their models be absolutely accurate (that's their selling claim) does not make them absolutely accurate per se.

[fruitbat]

Interesting stuff, Snapper, thanks for posting, even if it is a depressing read....

[ATAG_Snapper]

Please keep in mind that A2A is not equal to real life flight tests. These comparisons say and mean nothing.

That is not to say that the CoD data is correct but who knows about the truthfulness of A2A data.

Just because A2A claims their models be absolutely accurate (that's their selling claim) does not make them absolutely accurate per se.

The A2A data doesn't enter into it. Please read my post more carefully next time. I was drawing attention to CoD's offline vs online performance data. However, 1C should already be aware of this discrepancy -- it IS their sim after all.

[SlipBall]

Just a wild guess and don't laugh...is possibly a head wind:-P

[ATAG_Snapper]

Just a wild guess and don't laugh...is possibly a head wind:-P

Definitely a good thought, Slip. I don't believe winds are programmed in either the offline or online (ATAG server). Even so, I'm not sure wind would have too much (if any) effect on INDICATED airspeed per my chart. It certainly would on TRUE air speed.

[SlipBall]

Yea I remember having trouble turning on ground in ATAG 1

[ATAG_Snapper]

Yea I remember having trouble turning on ground in ATAG 1


I'll check into that. Engine torque would also affect ground handling AFAIK.

BTW, I'm no test pilot -- real life or virtual. I certainly invite anyone/everyone to try this or any variation and/or aircraft. It was Camber's post somewhere in this forum that got me to wondering about offline to online. The A2A data I had done earlier for my own interest -- apples to oranges as I've already expressed on this forum.

[IvanK]

Definitely a good thought, Slip. I don't believe winds are programmed in either the offline or online (ATAG server). Even so, I'm not sure wind would have too much (if any) effect on INDICATED airspeed per my chart. It certainly would on TRUE air speed.


Wind does not/cannot affect IAS or TAS (True) , it will affect Ground Speed. From IAS you determine TAS you then apply the wind effect to get Ground Speed.

[SlipBall]

I reasoned that wind would be the only variable between the on-line and off-line test's done by Snapper...pitot tubes have been installed in RL with environmental faults (inherent errors) magnified due to placement error, and after all we are dealing with a game here, and proper coding being done.:-P

[ATAG_Snapper]

Wind does not/cannot affect IAS or TAS (True) , it will affect Ground Speed. From IAS you determine TAS you then apply the wind effect to get Ground Speed.

Thanks for the clarification, IvanK!

[camber]

I'll check into that. Engine torque would also affect ground handling AFAIK.

BTW, I'm no test pilot -- real life or virtual. I certainly invite anyone/everyone to try this or any variation and/or aircraft. It was Camber's post somewhere in this forum that got me to wondering about offline to online. The A2A data I had done earlier for my own interest -- apples to oranges as I've already expressed on this forum.

Hmm, my test results are fast compared to others on this forum...as a professional scientist this worries me :) Obviously on-line "test piloting" is not particularly precise, but SL speeds should be reasonably comparable I think with care.

I can get on ATAG and fly for hours without CTD post patch as long as I stay away from other planes :( so I retested on-line and offline for the Spit II only.

To summarise:

* significant and unpredictable speed differences between the tool tip (roundimg to 10mph doesn't help), the cockpit gauge and the no-cockpit gauge.
* No real difference between online and offline speeds for me, and Spit II offline speeds consistent with last test
* full to 1/2 radiator makes a small difference (about 10mph)
* canopy closed/open makes no difference

Again, ball centred, wave skimming, time allowed to settle.

Online speeds are
(tool tip reading)/(approx cockpit gauge to 5mph)

1/2 rad +6.25psi 3000rpm 270/275
full rad +6.25psi 3000rpm 260/265
1/2 rad +9psi 2800rpm 290/290

Offline speeds we can also add the no cockpit gauge
(tool tip reading)/(approx cockpit gauge to 5mph)/(no cockpit gauge)

1/2 rad +6.25psi 3000rpm 260/270/270
1/2 rad +9psi 2800rpm 280/280/293

I think the new patch is trying to make me feel better, it CTDs so fast so it lets me get there faster than others :grin:

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thanks for posting this, Camber.

Your SL data for the IIa squares with what I got for both online and offline ie 290 mph IAS +/- 2 mph. Where my data began to diverge (offline vs online) is when I climbed to 5,000 feet and 10,000 feet. The online Spit IIa begins to seriously decline in IAS while the offline Spit IIa holds a fairly steady IAS right up to 10,000 feet (and possibly higher -- did not test beyond 10K).

I can't fathom why the two flight models for the two same aircraft should be so different at emergency combat settings ie. 2800 at full overboost. (The needle goes off scale on the boost gauge, so I can't tell if it's +9 lbs or +12 lbs -- or something else for that matter).

[klem]

Thanks for posting this, Camber.

Your SL data for the IIa squares with what I got for both online and offline ie 290 mph IAS +/- 2 mph. Where my data began to diverge (offline vs online) is when I climbed to 5,000 feet and 10,000 feet. The online Spit IIa begins to seriously decline in IAS while the offline Spit IIa holds a fairly steady IAS right up to 10,000 feet (and possibly higher -- did not test beyond 10K).

I can't fathom why the two flight models for the two same aircraft should be so different at emergency combat settings ie. 2800 at full overboost. (The needle goes off scale on the boost gauge, so I can't tell if it's +9 lbs or +12 lbs -- or something else for that matter).

I haven't used the no-cockpit gauges but why they woulld read differently is a real worry, surely these are the same gauges or are the gauges in the cockpit set in the 3D model whilst the no cockpit gauges are 'made' separately. In that case either the gauge plates could be calibrated differently or perhaps the needle rotation formulae are different.

Regarding the on line versus offline difference it could be that different atmospheric conditions are modelled, e.g. perhaps one is a 'standard day' and the other not or perhaps both are not and are different from eachother. Then again, the test environment used by 1C could be different from both.

http://stoenworks.com/Tutorials/Understanding%20airspeed.html
That standard is:
1. at sea level
2. standard day (temperature, humidity)
3. a barometric setting of 29.92 inches of pressure

If any of these criteria are off then the indicated airspeed will be different than the actual airspeed of the aircraft.

http://www.elsevierdirect.com/companions/9780340741528/appendices/data-d/default.htm
IAS = 'indicated airspeed'- this is the speed displayed on the aircraft instruments. As such it is a function of height (static pressure) and forward momentum (dynamic pressure). The value displayed on the instrument will be affected by local atmospheric conditions and by errors from the installation of the sensors on the aircraft.

I've added the 1940 documented data from spitfireperformance.com charts to your jpg so we can see how all the IAS's are off if its supposed to be a standard day.

However, note that the IAS's given for Spitfire IIa in the spitfireperformance chart we have been referring to is 'raw' so I have deducted the Positional Error Compensation and the Comp. figutres to give the true IAS's. I suspect this is what os modelled in CoD, I doubt if they modelled in a Positional Error or Comp. error.

[Winger]

I for my part as an almost exclusive 109 Pilot must say that i am having nice challenges against spits now after the patch. Seemingly the Spit IIa isnt as uber as it was before the patch. I cannot understand why everyone always complains until their plane is absolutely uber modeled so skill doesnt count anymore. I can understand if someone moans because his side/plane got nerfed to hell and back. But that is seemingly not the case with this patch. The 109 does roll like a tank since the newest patch but it at the same time feels much more authentic this way if you take into consideration the airspeed at wich this rolls take place. It just feels right.
I cannot tell about the Spitfire or hurricane. Only that good pilots make good fights now and not just the plane.

Winger

[Osprey]

"Only that good pilots make good fights now and not just the plane."

That is all well and good to an extent. The boys in our JG26 LW arm are now saying that things are way too easy and no longer a challenge because the109 has lost it's stall characteristics. He is now able to out-turn Spitfires easily, no longer needs to be careful about approach because if he gets involved he can escape anyway.

I did a quick test on the Hurricane Rotol and Couldn't get more than 230mph ASi out of it, trimmed, level flight, at various RPm (best 2650). According to this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

I should get 261mph with the Rotol which is 290mph TAS. Essentially the Hurricane is 50-60mph too slow. When I looked at the graphs B6 provided too the 109 is faster than RL up to 6km too, so we have an inaccuracy of around 80mph!!

[Osprey]

Also, I've found problems in climb. Maybe it's me but the Spitfire Ia ROC seems to fall off badly above 16kft. I can only seem to manage about 1000fpm constantly when I should be able to manage 2400fpm @ 15kft and 1,840fpm @ 20kft.
I may have a bad airspeed or RPM for the task but I was using 2600rpm and full power rad open trying to maintain 160mph ASI. Temperatures looked dangerously high, I found 140-150 seemed to give better climb.

This is too inaccurate as a test, I would like some opinion on it though.

[Winger]

"Only that good pilots make good fights now and not just the plane."

That is all well and good to an extent. The boys in our JG26 LW arm are now saying that things are way too easy and no longer a challenge because the109 has lost it's stall characteristics. He is now able to out-turn Spitfires easily, no longer needs to be careful about approach because if he gets involved he can escape anyway.

I did a quick test on the Hurricane Rotol and Couldn't get more than 230mph ASi out of it, trimmed, level flight, at various RPm (best 2650). According to this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I should get 261mph with the Rotol which is 290mph TAS. Essentially the Hurricane is 50-60mph too slow. When I looked at the graphs B6 provided too the 109 is faster than RL up to 6km too, so we have an inaccuracy of around 80mph!!

I fought a Spit yesterday and dove away. The guy followed me and i wasnt able to get distance on him. He seemingly then lost sight of me and broke off. Wich was my luck. I think people should Fly the crates for a while untily they know the strengths and weaknesses and then after maybe 1-2 weeks start complaining. But not already at day 1.

Winger

EDIT: But i surely understand red jockeys if the get upset fast. I would too. Did so already. Until i then realized it was me and the situation and not the plane:)

[Insuber]

I attacked Wellingtons at 3.5 km height on ATAG on my 109-E1, and suddenly found 3 or 4 Spits and Hurries buzzing around. After a bit of DF I dove for life, but at least one if not 2 Spits managed to stay on my tail down to < 1 km.
They should have hit some controls because trying to shake them again I went into an unrecoverable spin and crashed into the channel.

That's not to deny the FM mistakes of red fighters, which MUST be corrected asap by the devs, but to hint that the Bf-109 is not that invicible machine.

Cheers!

[Osprey]

I haven't managed to find a fight yet since the patch, I get up to 18kft where the Spitfire is meant to be stronger but nobody is ever there. It sucks.

I am going by what our JG26 boys have said, DavidRed has had a couple of 'Ace in a Sortie' flights already - that's just turkey shooting. Maybe some are turkeys but they aren't all turkeys. Like I say, I don't know personally so will have to experience it. I fly the Hurricane and it is 60mph slower than it should be (30mph @ 6.25lbs), which is massive for the slowest fighter anyway. I did a quick turn test with one of our 109 guys and he could stay with me easily in sustained 180mph turn - I should have been able to tail him in 2 circuits like that (though I appreciate that's not how to fly a 109!)

[VO101_Tom]

I did a quick test on the Hurricane Rotol and Couldn't get more than 230mph ASi out of it, trimmed, level flight, at various RPm (best 2650). According to this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I should get 261mph with the Rotol which is 290mph TAS. Essentially the Hurricane is 50-60mph too slow. When I looked at the graphs B6 provided too the 109 is faster than RL up to 6km too, so we have an inaccuracy of around 80mph!!

Your link don't work.

The RL tests measure the 109's 1.32 ata power. It's the "no WEP" line. :-| This graph is slower 35 km/h (on the deck) than it should.

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=153533&d=1334842797
- pilot's manual
- game with WEP
- game no WEP

I can't follow you calculations, how do you get 80 mph difference...?

[Osprey]

Updated it.

OK, so you cannot apply wep? What happens then? (I understand the wep limit should be 1 minute correct?)

Speed is just one part of the puzzle anyway, ROC, turn stall etc etc....... We need some sort of IL2COD_Compare

[Kwiatek]

Looking for 109 speed graph for patch i think speed is quite accurate modeled - max speed 500 km/h at the deck and 580? km/h at FTH, without 'WEP?" it looks like about 460-470 km/h which is accurate for RL serial test 109 with 1.3 Ata power ( 5-minutes WEP power).

But looking at patch speed graph for british fighters there is really big joke for me.
Hurricane MK1 with CSP at 6 1.2 lbs power should reach ab. 260 mph ( 420 kph) at the deck and some raported after patch it could reach only 230 mph (370 kph)???? WTF???
50 km/h difference? And these is without 100 octan fuel performance.


Strange that 1C FM engeneer could achived very accurate results for 109 E in game ( beta patch) but srew a lot with british fighters performacne ?!

[VO101_Tom]

Updated it.

OK, so you cannot apply wep? What happens then? (I understand the wep limit should be 1 minute correct?)

Speed is just one part of the puzzle anyway, ROC, turn stall etc etc....... We need some sort of IL2COD_Compare

If the Hurri slower 30 mph, and the 109 slower 10-20 mph, then the difference is 20-10 mph... not 60.

The WEP have limits, we didn't testing with the new engine, but we notice, the cooling leak causes engine failure. It should testing the other systems before I say anything.

We notice a huge difference the old and the new FM. Have to learn to fly with all planes.The stall characterics changed drastically (the 109's too). Far worse agile, and far less stability on slow speed (and i like it. I just flew gliders, but the high AoA flight, the stall, spin and the wing flaps looks more real now). The spin is stronger, and hard to recover. No more tight turn with open flap (you dorp your speed quickly, and fall like a rock - particularly the Spit/Hurri's Split-Flap).

[Bokononist]

Looking for 109 speed graph for patch i think speed is quite accurate modeled - max speed 500 km/h at the deck and 580? km/h at FTH, without 'WEP?" it looks like about 460-470 km/h which is accurate for RL serial test 109 with 1.3 Ata power ( 5-minutes WEP power).

But looking at patch speed graph for british fighters there is really big joke for me.
Hurricane MK1 with CSP at 6 1.2 lbs power should reach ab. 260 mph ( 420 kph) at the deck and some raported after patch it could reach only 230 mph (370 kph)???? WTF???
50 km/h difference? And these is without 100 octan fuel performance.


Strange that 1C FM engeneer could achived very accurate results for 109 E in game ( beta patch) but srew a lot with british fighters performacne ?!

I've only just flown the Hurricane and the SPIT IIa briefly today, well frankly on first impressions its not much fun. I wouldn't be confident taking either into a dogfight against a 109.
Flying the Spit didn't feel like a plane that struck fear into the Lufwaffe.
Is there some kind of agenda from 1C? I can't imagine what it is, but it seems that for flight sim enthusiasts they have no love for two of the most famous planes in history. Ho Hum.

[Osprey]

If the Hurri slower 30 mph, and the 109 slower 10-20 mph, then the difference is 20-10 mph... not 60.

The WEP have limits, we didn't testing with the new engine, but we notice, the cooling leak causes engine failure. It should testing the other systems before I say anything.

We notice a huge difference the old and the new FM. Have to learn to fly with all planes.The stall characterics changed drastically (the 109's too). Far worse agile, and far less stability on slow speed (and i like it. I just flew gliders, but the high AoA flight, the stall, spin and the wing flaps looks more real now). The spin is stronger, and hard to recover. No more tight turn with open flap (you dorp your speed quickly, and fall like a rock - particularly the Spit/Hurri's Split-Flap).

Tom, this is @ 10kft and with any 12lbs boost. You are talking about SL where the 109 difference is greatest, the difference there for the 109 is about 15-20kmph? I think its a big difference. When the Spitfire II was 30mph too fast the LW complained so much it was banned, suddenly there are few on the LW fighting the cause for the RAF types which run way too slow now.

Interesting what you say about coolant now causing engine failure - that's a big fix and will be interesting to see the behaviour.

[VO101_Tom]

Tom, this is @ 10kft and with any 12lbs boost. You are talking about SL where the 109 difference is greatest, the difference there for the 109 is about 15-20kmph? I think its a big difference. When the Spitfire II was 30mph too fast the LW complained so much it was banned, suddenly there are few on the LW fighting the cause for the RAF types which run way too slow now.

Interesting what you say about coolant now causing engine failure - that's a big fix and will be interesting to see the behaviour.

I'm not say, the small difference is OK, I also want that the graphs become accurate. I'm just say, the difference isn't 60-80mph (as the IIa was).

Yesterday one of my mate notice this coolant leak, but need further testing - or ask Luthier the detailed change list...

[cebit]

One of you is talking 50mph and the other 50km/h.

[Kwiatek]

One of you is talking 50mph and the other 50km/h.

Lack of 50 km/h is at only 6 1/2 lbs power settings for beta patch Hurricane but when you know that BOB Hurricane MK1 was flying with 100 Octan fuel at +12 lbs emergency power the difference - lack of speed would be 50 mph at the deck.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I'm not say, the small difference is OK, I also want that the graphs become accurate. I'm just say, the difference isn't 60-80mph (as the IIa was).

Yesterday one of my mate notice this coolant leak, but need further testing - or ask Luthier the detailed change list...

Hi Tom, I know that 1C has stated the IIa was 60 mph faster than the RL Spitfire IIa, but my tests to 10,000 feet (where the majority of ATAG combat takes place) seems to place it within 20 mph (too fast). Have you seen the chart(s) that 1C has used? IC has adjusted the RAF fighter FM's downwards accordingly and I'm frankly puzzled by this turn of events and the reasoning or logic behind it.

[VO101_Tom]

Hi Tom, I know that 1C has stated the IIa was 60 mph faster than the RL Spitfire IIa, but my tests to 10,000 feet (where the majority of ATAG combat takes place) seems to place it within 20 mph (too fast). Have you seen the chart(s) that 1C has used? IC has adjusted the RAF fighter FM's downwards accordingly and I'm frankly puzzled by this turn of events and the reasoning or logic behind it.

Hi. No, I didn't see the 1C measurement results, but i don't understand, B6 why would say this, if it's not true.
ps. Some kind of Clod-compare would be the best. Everyone would be happy if we can get accurate and detailed performance graphs.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

If the Hurri slower 30 mph, and the 109 slower 10-20 mph, then the difference is 20-10 mph... not 60.

The WEP have limits, we didn't testing with the new engine, but we notice, the cooling leak causes engine failure. It should testing the other systems before I say anything.

We notice a huge difference the old and the new FM. Have to learn to fly with all planes.The stall characterics changed drastically (the 109's too). Far worse agile, and far less stability on slow speed (and i like it. I just flew gliders, but the high AoA flight, the stall, spin and the wing flaps looks more real now). The spin is stronger, and hard to recover. No more tight turn with open flap (you dorp your speed quickly, and fall like a rock - particularly the Spit/Hurri's Split-Flap).

Actually to my understanding the flaps of the Spits and Hurris were only used for landing. Unsurprisingly because they really destroy any speed quickly. They are rather airbrakes than high lift devices considering their angle at which they are exposed to the air stream. For the seafire they used a trick to lock shortly and only once per flight the flaps to a halfway position for takeoff.

[Kwiatek]

I checked 109 sea level speeds and nothing change comparing to pre beta patch version.

109 E-3 (manual prop)/ E-4 auto prop

1.35 Ata at 2400 RPM - 450 kph at 0
1.45 Ata at 2500 RPM - 460 kph at 0

So i think there is no changes in FM of 109 ( also there is no info about it in beta patch notes). So still 109 is to slow ab. 20 km/h at 1.3 Ata power and ab. 20 km/h at 1.4 Ata - so generally 40 km/h slowier at the deck.

Moreover i checked british fighters in beta patch and i got:

Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/ 410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is very accurate result!!!!

Still no 100 octan fuel performance - so no emergency +12 lbs.

P.S.

Test was made in the same map and settings over channel at near sea level, i checked different RPM settings, radiator etc. for all fighters and choose the best ones to achive the best results.

[bongodriver]

strange....I just couldn't get the mk2 spit above 240 mph at sea level

[CaptainDoggles]

I checked 109 sea level speeds and nothing change comparing to pre beta patch version....

Do you use some kind of level-flight aid or just a very steady hand? I would like to test at FTH as well but I have trouble keeping it within +/- 50m.

[Kwiatek]

Do you use some kind of level-flight aid or just a very steady hand? I would like to test at FTH as well but I have trouble keeping it within +/- 50m.

Trimm trimm trim and steady hand plus watch vario + above 10 years flying sims + 8 years real life flying + ab. 3 years flight model modding and testing in il2 :)

[Kwiatek]

strange....I just couldn't get the mk2 spit above 240 mph at sea level

Are you sure it is MKII not MK1?? Cause i cant get MK1 above 240 mph at sea level - max speed 238 mph at 6 1/2 lbs.

SRY i made mistake in these post cause i miss Hurricane with SPitfire. Of course SPit MK1a in beta patch reach 255 mph at 6 1/2 lbs and Spitfire MKII reach 268 mph at the same boost.

[bongodriver]

Are you sure it is MKII not MK1?? Cause i cant get MK1 above 240 mph at sea level - max speed 238 mph at 6 1/2 lbs.

I will check again, sounds like thats what happened.

[VO101_Tom]

Actually to my understanding the flaps of the Spits and Hurris were only used for landing. Unsurprisingly because they really destroy any speed quickly. They are rather airbrakes than high lift devices considering their angle at which they are exposed to the air stream. For the seafire they used a trick to lock shortly and only once per flight the flaps to a halfway position for takeoff.

Of course, this is only used for landing in RL.
But in the game, some (less experienced) red pilot use the landing flap to tight turn :rolleyes:. Of course small angular velocity can be obtained for a short time, but the speed dropped fast - even before the patch too. Now the consequences is much more drastic.

[klem]

Are you sure it is MKII not MK1?? Cause i cant get MK1 above 240 mph at sea level - max speed 238 mph at 6 1/2 lbs.

Kwiatek, did you make those tests off line or on line? Just curious because on line at 100 feet off Manston we couldn't get more than 248mph in Spit MkIa. Not that 8mph matters when its so far off.

Is there any way to check the atmosphere settings for on and off line? Is one or neither a 'standard day'?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Kwiatek, did you make those tests off line or on line? Just curious because on line at 100 feet off Manston we couldn't get more than 248mph in Spit MkIa. Not that 8mph matters when its so far off.

Is there any way to check the atmosphere settings for on and off line? Is one or neither a 'standard day'?

Hi Klem,

Here's what I got yesterday for the Spit Ia at sea level:

6.5 lbs, 2800 rpms: 245 online, 249 offline
6.5 lbs, 3000 rpms: 252 online, 253 offline

[CaptainDoggles]

Hi Klem,

Here's what I got yesterday for the Spit Ia at sea level:

6.5 lbs, 2800 rpms: 245 online, 249 offline
6.5 lbs, 3000 rpms: 252 online, 253 offline

Did you try offline at 3000 RPM? Comparing different RPM settings is rather counter-intuitive.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Did you try offline at 3000 RPM? Comparing different RPM settings is rather counter-intuitive.

I don't understand your question. Both online and offline are there, for two rpms. What's so "counterintuitive" about that?

[Kwiatek]

Kwiatek, did you make those tests off line or on line? Just curious because on line at 100 feet off Manston we couldn't get more than 248mph in Spit MkIa. Not that 8mph matters when its so far off.

Is there any way to check the atmosphere settings for on and off line? Is one or neither a 'standard day'?


Ups sry i made mistake Hurricane ( 238 mph) speed with Spitfire MK1 (255 mph).

I got 255 mph for Spitfire MK1a at sea level. Speed achived with acceleration in level flight not a dive.

All test i made was offline, single player mission, quick fly over channel.

[CaptainDoggles]

I don't understand your question. Both online and offline are there, for two rpms. What's so "counterintuitive" about that?

WOW. I can't read. Sorry.

I don't even-

[klem]

Ups sry i made mistake Hurricane ( 238 mph) speed with Spitfire MK1 (255 mph).

I got 255 mph for Spitfire MK1a at sea level. Speed achived with acceleration in level flight not a dive.

All test i made was offline, single player mission, quick fly over channel.

255mph amost identical to ATAG_Sappers figure of 253mph for Spit Ia offline.

I think there's an atmosphere issue between on line and off line.

btw guys when you read off those ASI mph figures on the spitfire performance charts don't forget to deduct the PEC and Comp errors, e.g. SpitIa at 10,000 feet, ASI 286mph, Corrected (CAS) 275.4mph.

[camber]

Hi all,

My speeds are somewhat higher than others
For example, I get around 255-260mph SL offline for Spit Ia (3000rpm, +61/2psi)

EDIT: what am I talking about? Looking back the speeds are pretty similar for the last few posts. But will leave following points in:

A few things:

The cockpit gauge is not very precise, and tool tip gives speed in 10mph increments only (the no cockpit guage is a lot better). How are people recording +/-1 mph speeds online, is it estimating from needle position? I feel like estimating within 5mph is pushing it, and above 280mph the marks are in 20mph increments so to 10mph is pushing it.

The radiator position does give small increments in speed. I found that open to 1/2 open radiator gives 5-10mph extra (1/2 open to closed gives -250mph :)). What radiator position are people using?

I also found that accelleration can be glacially slow for the final few mph. How long are people attempting to wave skim at their best 0fpm before recording a value?

Cheers, camber

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hi all,

My speeds are somewhat higher than others
For example, I get around 255-260mph SL offline for Spit Ia (3000rpm, +61/2psi)

EDIT: what am I talking about? Looking back the speeds are pretty similar for the last few posts. But will leave following points in:

A few things:

The cockpit gauge is not very precise, and tool tip gives speed in 10mph increments only (the no cockpit guage is a lot better). How are people recording +/-1 mph speeds online, is it estimating from needle position? I feel like estimating within 5mph is pushing it, and above 280mph the marks are in 20mph increments so to 10mph is pushing it.

The radiator position does give small increments in speed. I found that open to 1/2 open radiator gives 5-10mph extra (1/2 open to closed gives -250mph :)). What radiator position are people using?

I also found that accelleration can be glacially slow for the final few mph. How long are people attempting to wave skim at their best 0fpm before recording a value?

Cheers, camber

I have my trim controls assigned to two levers on my CH Quadrant which gives me pretty precise control in levelling out at the proscribed setting. That said, it sometimes took a minute or three before I was satisfied that I was flying perfectly level at the exact altitude. By that time the speed is rock stable. I'm now virtually hands off so I can easily zoom in to the airspeed gauge to get a reasonably accurate reading despite the coarse scale. I agree the speeds will be +/- a few mph, but it's not too hard to make a fair estimation -- certainly within the precision of any concern.

All my readings were taken with radiator at 50%.

I'm running about 50 feet off the waves. I use my trim axis, not my joystick axis, to make the final delicate adjustments to maintaining perfectly level flight. I found it exacting and time consuming, but the airspeed held rock steady so I felt confident in the reading I was taking -- within +/- 2 mph at the most.

Hopefully others will have data, including the LW a/c, in case others fall on the short side of the curve at various altitudes.

Other parameters, in time, will need to be looked at as well such as turn radii, dive speeds, climb rates, etc.

[klem]

I have my trim controls assigned to two levers on my CH Quadrant which gives me pretty precise control in levelling out at the proscribed setting. That said, it sometimes took a minute or three before I was satisfied that I was flying perfectly level at the exact altitude. By that time the speed is rock stable. I'm now virtually hands off so I can easily zoom in to the airspeed gauge to get a reasonably accurate reading despite the coarse scale. I agree the speeds will be +/- a few mph, but it's not too hard to make a fair estimation -- certainly within the precision of any concern.

All my readings were taken with radiator at 50%.

I'm running about 50 feet off the waves. I use my trim axis, not my joystick axis, to make the final delicate adjustments to maintaining perfectly level flight. I found it exacting and time consuming, but the airspeed held rock steady so I felt confident in the reading I was taking -- within +/- 2 mph at the most.

Hopefully others will have data, including the LW a/c, in case others fall on the short side of the curve at various altitudes.

Other parameters, in time, will need to be looked at as well such as turn radii, dive speeds, climb rates, etc.

Have you found a magical way to trim in the roll axis?
Or do you: 1. trim the rudder to offset the roll (thereby introducing drag) or 2. just hold the stick over (well, that would introduce some drag from the ailerons too I suppose).

[335th_GRAthos]

Hey guys,

Just out of curiocity (and 'cause I am too thick to go through the 30 pages and understand):

Does the current Spit MK1a and Hurri MK1a performance (after the alpha patch) match the graphs that were posted on page 1 of this thread????


~S~

[Insuber]

Please, can someone summarize the results of the tests? I'm lost between RL, offline, online speeds of Hurricane, Spit I, Ia, IIa etc.

[Insuber]

Hi Klem,

Here's what I got yesterday for the Spit Ia at sea level:

6.5 lbs, 2800 rpms: 245 online, 249 offline
6.5 lbs, 3000 rpms: 252 online, 253 offline

May I ask how does it compare with historical test data?

[Winger]

OK Guys. I cannot tell about the Hurricane. But yesterday on ATAG i had a fight against a Spitfire in my E4. First at like 2000m height. I dove away trying to extend and gain distance. Then on the deck was hardly able to outrun her, I realized he obviously lost sight and flew like 150m beside me, same height, seemingly same speed. I made the error, hoped he didnt see me and turned in to engage. Sadly he WAS aware i was aware of my position, outturned me and in no time was on my 6. I tried to run, scissor but nothing helped. He emptied his guns on me and I managed to crashland in england. So PLEASE. I you guys keep moaning about allied planes being too weak this will become another ROF germans slaughterfest.

Winger

[41Sqn_Banks]

But yesterday on ATAG i had a fight against a Spitfire in my E4. ...

Was it a Spitfire I or Spitfire II?

[Winger]

Was it a Spitfire I or Spitfire II?

Sorry he had no skin saying so and i am not yet as trained to see the diffrences between the two. Especially not at 700 km/h and in the heat of battle.

Winger

[ElAurens]

Guys, as we all know, online combat reports are meaningless in discussions of aircraft performance numbers.

Even real pilots are very poor judges of another aircraft's speed and energy state.

[ATAG_Snapper]

May I ask how does it compare with historical test data?

Hi Insuber,

Top speed for the Ia at sea level should be 283 IAS at full overboost at 3000 rpms (before the engine blows up LOL). If the boost control cut out functioned as it should in this sim and provided another short-term emergency speed boost of 25 mph, (253 + 25 = 278 mph), we'd actually be within 5 mph of Real Life data. IMHO, of course. :grin:

[ATAG_Snapper]

Sorry he had no skin saying so and i am not yet as trained to see the diffrences between the two. Especially not at 700 km/h and in the heat of battle.

Winger

Hi Winger,

If you have a chat window open which is also receiving Server Messages (you can do this in Customize Windows in-game) you can see the announcement of your demise - including who shot you down flying which aircraft. It can be easy to miss though, in the heat of the action, especially if the messages are scrolling fast on a busy night.

[Winger]

Hi Winger,

If you have a chat window open which is also receiving Server Messages (you can do this in Customize Windows in-game) you can see the announcement of your demise - including who shot you down flying which aircraft. It can be easy to miss though, in the heat of the action, especially if the messages are scrolling fast on a busy night.

Thanks. I know but missed to look. I was busy bringin my cripopled plane to the ground and staying alive while doing so:)

Winger

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thanks. I know but missed to look. I was busy bringin my cripopled plane to the ground and staying alive while doing so:)

Winger

Been there, done that X 1000! LOL

It was likely a Spit IIa, based on your report. They've been "detuned" from the 1.5950 retail version, but they're still a threat, obviously.

What I'm hoping is that someone will do some in-game tests of the 109 (whatever models) just to see what their top IAS is at sea level. I've noticed the online (ATAG Server) FM differs from the offline FM on the IIa at higher altitudes (5,000 & 10,000 feet), don't know if the 109 Ex is affected this way as well. I don't have sufficient stick time on the 109 to do it justice.

In fact, my tests were a one-trial-only wonder series, so my data is certainly open for challenge. I have no ego/agenda other than I personally would like to see ALL RAF/LW aircraft modelled accurately in CoD. So far my findings at sea level jives closely with a couple of other members here, but I don't think anyone has done a direct comparison between online & offline FM's at higher altitudes.

BTW, I was downed by IvanK last night high over an AI formation of Wellies flying towards France. I was about 16K in my invincable Spitfire IIa and upsun of the formation I was protecting, ready to pounce on any unwary 109 coming in to attack 'em. What could possibly go wrong? Until my starboard wing suddenly got holed, my controls went slack, and the cockpit turned red. And my parachute failed to open......:evil:

[Insuber]

Hi Insuber,

Top speed for the Ia at sea level should be 283 IAS at full overboost at 3000 rpms (before the engine blows up LOL). If the boost control cut out functioned as it should in this sim and provided another short-term emergency speed boost of 25 mph, (253 + 25 = 278 mph), we'd actually be within 5 mph of Real Life data. IMHO, of course. :grin:

Hi Snapper - thank you! Do you refer to the 6.25 lbs or the 12 lbs boost?

Cheers,
Ins

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hi Snapper - thank you! Do you refer to the 6.25 lbs or the 12 lbs boost?

Cheers,
Ins

12 lbs boost

I figure top speed is top speed ie. balls out full throttle-through-the-gate-gonna-catch-that-yellow-nosed-bastage top speed....even if it's only gonna last 5 minutes on a good day. :grin:

Others more learned than I (and there's lots of THEM!) may differ, and so be it. Me? I just wanna shoot 109's. Oh, and 110's, too. :-P

[41Sqn_Banks]

Hi Snapper - thank you! Do you refer to the 6.25 lbs or the 12 lbs boost?

Cheers,
Ins

He means that if we would have +12 boost in-game, which would add 25mph to the +6.25 in-game speed, the in-game speed at +12 boost would be within 5mph of the real life +6.25 boost.

[ATAG_Snapper]

He means that if we would have +12 boost in-game, which would add 25mph to the +6.25 in-game speed, the in-game speed at +12 boost would be within 5mph of the real life +6.25 boost.

Thanks, Banks! That's what I meant to say! :)

[Insuber]

In terms of performance I find also the Bf-110 C-7 a bit too slow. I can't exceed 420-430 Km/h @ s.l., no payload, with 50% fuel, rads full open. From the Internet I find for the C-4 (same DB 601N 1200 hp engines, theconly difference being the bomb racks):

Bf 110C-4 - Maximum Speed: 294mph (473km/h) at sea level, 349mph (561km/h) at 7,000 metres (22,965 feet)
Cruise Speed: 217-262mph (349-422km/h)
Time to 5,500 metres (18,045 feet): 8 minutes
Service Ceiling: 9,754 metres (32,000 feet)
Range: 565 miles (909 kilometres)

Source:

www.airgalore.co.uk/vault/bf110.html

Cheers!

[Insuber]

12 lbs boost

I figure top speed is top speed ie. balls out full throttle-through-the-gate-gonna-catch-that-yellow-nosed-bastage top speed....even if it's only gonna last 5 minutes on a good day. :grin:

Others more learned than I (and there's lots of THEM!) may differ, and so be it. Me? I just wanna shoot 109's. Oh, and 110's, too. :-P

LOL! With dangerous maniacs like you in circulation I would reduce the Spit's speed even a little more then! :-D

[ATAG_Snapper]

In terms of performance I find also the Bf-110 C-7 a bit too slow. I can't exceed 420-430 Km/h @ s.l., no payload, with 50% fuel, rads full open. From the Internet I find for the C-4 (same DB 601N 1200 hp engines, theconly difference being the bomb racks):

Bf 110C-4 - Maximum Speed: 294mph (473km/h) at sea level, 349mph (561km/h) at 7,000 metres (22,965 feet)
Cruise Speed: 217-262mph (349-422km/h)
Time to 5,500 metres (18,045 feet): 8 minutes
Service Ceiling: 9,754 metres (32,000 feet)
Range: 565 miles (909 kilometres)

Source:

www.airgalore.co.uk/vault/bf110.html

Cheers!

That's not good. I have no hard data in front of me, but my impressions of the 110 are that if it jettisons its load it was tough for RAF fighter to catch. And if they did it it was no pushover -- it had huge firepower (including a rear gunner) and speed, but not as maneuverable as a single seat fighter.

Sounds like the 110, as modelled in this sim, should be 40 - 50 kmh faster at sea level.

[Kwiatek]

In terms of performance I find also the Bf-110 C-7 a bit too slow. I can't exceed 420-430 Km/h @ s.l., no payload, with 50% fuel, rads full open. From the Internet I find for the C-4 (same DB 601N 1200 hp engines, theconly difference being the bomb racks):

Bf 110C-4 - Maximum Speed: 294mph (473km/h) at sea level, 349mph (561km/h) at 7,000 metres (22,965 feet)
Cruise Speed: 217-262mph (349-422km/h)
Time to 5,500 metres (18,045 feet): 8 minutes
Service Ceiling: 9,754 metres (32,000 feet)
Range: 565 miles (909 kilometres)

Source:

www.airgalore.co.uk/vault/bf110.html

Cheers!

Dont think such suorce is reliable for Bf 110 C-4 both for ground level speed and FTH speed.

Look here:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ui7z9g.jpg

and here

http://i46.tinypic.com/34j836h.gif

[Insuber]

Thank you Kwiatek.

BTW, I've tested on ATAG the story that the Emil now turns inside Spits: it's not true, from my humble point of view.

I got behind a Spit IIa while on my E-4, and when he turned I tried to follow it on purpose. Well, despite I'm not a novice 109 pilot, Pomidor303 was in an advantage position scoring hits in less than 2 turns, and then only some scissors and the low light of the dawn saved me.

Ah BTW the sound radar is still there, when reds canopies are open :-)


Cheers!

[Insuber]

Dont think such suorce is reliable for Bf 110 C-4 both for ground level speed and FTH speed.

Look here:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ui7z9g.jpg

and here

http://i46.tinypic.com/34j836h.gif

Your first graph refers to the DB 601A, with some 100 hp less IIRC. Speed at s.l. matches the C-7 in-game, but the latter has a DB601N rated at 1200 hp. The second graph is just an estimate based on the "drag and power". It gives only 3-4 km/h more to the C-7 against the C-1/2 for 9% more power ... just 1% more speed ... not a great interpolation imho ... :)

[Kwiatek]

Unfortunately still besides Spitfire MK II ( 87 octan version) most fighters are off in speed performance. British fighters are even lack in speed for 87 octan version - the most hurted now is Hurricane. Im not sure - didnt check before beta patch but it seemed for me that Hurricane was more accurate then now. Just 109 E was too slow.

So i think 1C has still a lot work to do here.

The same like with some flying characterstisic of some planes.

Example im sure that 109 E slats open at too low speed at too low angle of attack. In straight fly with idle power slats open below 150 km/h when it should open according to British test at 111 mph/180 km/h ASI.

[Kwiatek]

Your first graph refers to the DB 601A, with some 100 hp less IIRC. Speed at s.l. matches the C-7 in-game, but the latter has a DB601N rated at 1200 hp. The second graph is just an estimate based on the "drag and power". It gives only 3-4 km/h more to the C-7 against the C-1/2 for 9% more power ... just 1% more speed ... not a great interpolation imho ... :)

Well it is more complicated that you think :)

You need to compare power curves for both 601A and 601N etc. Also i dont know what engine is used for 109 C in game. Most 110 C used Db601 engine and some used 601N but what i remember there were jabo version with bomb racks which cut some speed expecially at low alts ( with densy air). 601N had more adventage at high alts over 601A then at lower alts.

[Insuber]

Well it is more complicated that you think :)

You need to compare power curves for both 601A and 601N etc. Also i dont know what engine is used for 109 C in game. Most 110 C used Db601 engine and some used 601N but what i remember there were jabo version with bomb racks which cut some speed expecially at low alts ( with densy air). 601N had more adventage at high alts over 601A then at lower alts.

Eheheh I'm an engineer by education I'm more complicate than you think :)

I refer to the C-7 variant, which should be entirely equipped with the 1200 hp DB601N, three/blade propeller, rising the payload from 500 kg to 1000 kg (two 500 kg bombs).

Given that the speed / drag relationship is quadratic, and the thrust / speed is *broadly speaking* cubic, I doubt that 9% more power gives only <1% more speed. But I can be wrong ... :D

[Kwiatek]

You have to note that from calculated speed graph for different 110 C variants yellow curve is for 601N 30-minut engine power and grey curve is for 601A 5-minut emergency power :)

[Insuber]

You have to note that from calculated speed graph for different 110 C variants yellow curve is for 601N 30-minut engine power and grey curve is for 601A 5-minut emergency power :)

Then I notice also that the first graph, taken from the 110 HandBuch, which should be the DB601A at normal boost, shows the same performance for the C-1 of the grey curve in the second graph, which is the DB601A with emergency power. I see another contradiction here of the interpolated curves, don't you think so?

[Kwiatek]

First graph from handbuch show speed at 1.3 Ata power - 5 minutes emergency but with old supercharger ( 4.0 km).

Blue and black line in second graph are for 30 minut power - 1.23 Ata. Grey line in second graph is for 1.3 Ata - 5 minutes emergency power but with new supercharger ( 4.5 km).

Worth to looke here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/110c-performances-11171.html

and here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-110-c-4-performance-16139.html

As always devil is in details :P

[Insuber]

Ok thanks! The first graph had no details, so the devil was well hidden ... :-)