Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[BlackSix]

Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

I don't have any other graphs or information now.

[albx]

thank you B6, any news on the progress of beta patch?

[BlackSix]

thank you B6, any news on the progress of beta patch?
I don't have any other graphs or information now.
!

[41Sqn_Banks]

The Spitfire IA "patch" and "flight test" lines have the same color. Can you help identifying which one is what? (e.g. "flight test" line is slower at low altitude)

[addman]

Just logged in to say:

http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv128/imaslaya1/Nelson.gif

[Luftwaffepilot]

Blacksix, can you please ask for info then.

[albx]

!

sorry,I haven't seen it, too busy to read the graph

[Skoshi Tiger]

Good to see the patch and real life test data are lining up a bit more.

Thanks for the update!

[SEE]

Thanks for posting BS, as already requested - which line for the Spit Mk1a is the patch?

[taildraggernut]

Thanks for posting BS, as already requested - which line for the Spit Mk1a is the patch?

Good point, they are the same colour.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Comparing the other "post"-patch graphs I'd say it's the one that has slower speed below FTH. The in-game graphs seem to have a sharper edge at the FTH than the real-life tests.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Thanks for posting BS, as already requested - which line for the Spit Mk1a is the patch?

There both merlin engines arnt they? On the Hurricane graph the test flight one is rounded. The patch one has an angle at the apex.

Its the bottom one. ;)

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thank you for posting this, Black Six.

[SEE]

Its the bottom one. ;)


oh....crap! Ah well, I have always preferred to be at 55000+ in MP - I can stop whinging once I get to that altitude! :o

[41Sqn_Banks]

The reference graph seems to be based on N. 3171.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171speed.jpg

[BlackSix]

I changed graphs

[5./JG27.Farber]

I changed graphs

Weeeeee I was right!

..and so on the 2nd day Black six did come down from on high to mount 1C where he did give the common people two more tablets... and it was entered in the book of CloDo... and there was much rejoicing! Until later when there was a violent secular clash in which many threads and posts were dismembered and slaine...

:twisted:

[SEE]

Thank you BS, but I am confused why the devs have generally reduced the Spit Mk1a speed in the next patch given that it is already slower than the flight test data?

I don't understand that at all.

[EAF51/155_TonyR]

Thank you BS, but I am confused why the devs have generally reduced the Spit Mk1a speed in the next patch given that it is already slower than the flight test data?

I don't understand that at all.
Because devs fly blue, maybe ? :)

[SiThSpAwN]

Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

I don't have any other graphs or information now.

You dont have any other information, but work continues to have the patch this week? Yes?

[ATAG_Dutch]

These graphs only show performance from 2000/3000m and up, whereas the previous graphs showed performance from 0m and up.

It's very interesting to note that between 3000 and 5000m, the patched 109E4 performs better than RL, whereas both the Rotol Hurri and the MkIa Spitfire perform worse than RL at these altitudes.

Please can we see graphs for the Spits and Hurris from 0m and up, so we can make a true comparison?

Many Thanks.

[BlackSix]

You dont have any other information, but work continues to have the patch this week? Yes?

Yes

[SiThSpAwN]

Yes


Thank You Blacksix... oh and by the way, I felt the same as you about Diablo III ;)

[BlackSix]

These graphs only show performance from 3000m and up, whereas the previous graphs showed performance from 0m and up.

It's very interesting to note that between 3000 and 5000m, the patched 109E4 performs better than RL, whereas both the Rotol Hurri and the MkIa Spitfire perform worse than RL at these altitudes.

Please can we see graphs for the Spits and Hurris from 0m and up, so we can make a true comparison?

Many Thanks.

We don't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m.

[BlackSix]

Thank You Blacksix... oh and by the way, I felt the same as you about Diablo III ;)

OMG! Everything is monitored and translated?))

[SiThSpAwN]

OMG! Everything is monitored and translated?))


Yes... well all those cold war spies need to do something now ;)

[EAF51/155_TonyR]

Im flying the Spit 1a very often in this period and, if i well understand the graph, i never was able to reach 310 mph=500 kmh in level flight. At most i can reach 260 mph. Probably im making something wrong.

[ATAG_Snapper]

We don't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m.

Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

[41Sqn_Banks]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0As3w96qEChledFMwODljWXI5cUVnSWN6aWV6Mkho OFE&oid=2&zx=40gk54utfx7r

I've read the values from the various charts by a ruler. Note that I only used the values at altitude 0, 1000, 2000, ..., 10000 (1000 m step)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

This (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171speed.jpg) chart gives speed down to 0 feet. I think it's calculated as the test log only goes down to 3000 m.

[fruitbat]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0As3w96qEChledFMwODljWXI5cUVnSWN6aWV6Mkho OFE&oid=2&zx=40gk54utfx7r

I've read the values from the various charts by a ruler. Note that I only used the values at altitude 0, 1000, 2000, ..., 10000 (1000 m step)

Thanks for doing that. Guess i'm staying above 6000m when flying red, lol.

[BlackSix]

Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

More correctly: we didn't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m for this test.
I don't know how our FM programmer made this planes for game in 2011.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thanks, Banks. That chart squares very closely to what we all KNOW how a Spitfire Ia performs at sea level. The vast majority of dogfights on the ATAG Server occur well below 3000 meters, including those that start above that mark inevitably descend well below it.

For a year the CoD RAF fighters (save the IIa) have been saddled with poor low altitude performance, with the only fighter, the Spitfire IIa the only one which comes close to historical performance at low altitude (300 mph at sea level vs 290 mph historically). Yet in the face of stiff opposition by many of those who fly 109's, the IIa was either excluded or severely limited in the ATAG plane sets. Now we've been advised that the IIa will be nerfed in the upcoming patch by as much as 60 mph at some point(s) on the speed curve. In view of the Rotol and Ia information, confidence by many who choose to fly RAF fighters is very low that correct flight modelling for all three models (Ia, IIa, Hurricane Rotol/Ia) will actually be done in this upcoming patch.

All many of want is an ACCURATE representation of ALL fighter flight models for BOTH sides. The Spitfire Ia was considered a serious threat by Luftwaffe 109 pilots during the Battle of Britain at ALL altitudes. In Cliffs of Dover, the "Sissyfire" Ia is a cruel joke that has lasted over a year -- anyone who plays Cliffs of Dover doesn't need performance charts to realize that. Why can't the devs see that?????

[ATAG_Snapper]

More correctly: we didn't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m for this test.
I don't know how our FM programmer made this planes for game in 2011.

Thanks, Black Six. I think we've got it figured out.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

Yes, judging from the graph the Spitfire lost pre-patch 30km/h for each 1000 m of altitude (from 530 at 4000 to 500 at 3000). At the same pace it will end up with 400km/h at 0 m (= 250mph).

Post-patch it seems to be slightly less (Maybe I just want so see that), maybe 25km/h for each 1000m. This would result in 415km/h (=260mph).

Of course that won't help much against the 460/490 km/h of the Bf 109.

IMHO the base speeds are not that badly implemented compared to historical values. However the WEP, which was historically available for the Bf 109 only for take-off and up to 1-1.5km gives the in-game Bf 109 a huge speed advantage.

[41Sqn_Banks]

m S H 109W 109
0 490 460
1000 510 480
2000 435 530 500
3000 490 455 550 520
4000 510 480 570 540
5000 540 505 580 570
6000 560 520 560 560
7000 560 495 520 520
8000 540 455
9000 520
10000


Those are the values I used for the graph, maybe someone can check it to rule out reading errors by myself.

S= Spitfire
H= Hurricane
109W = Bf 109 WEP
109 = Bf 109 no WEP

[ATAG_Snapper]

Yes, judging from the graph the Spitfire lost pre-patch 30km/h for each 1000 m of altitude (from 530 at 4000 to 500 at 3000). At the same pace it will end up with 400km/h at 0 m (= 250mph).

Post-patch it seems to be slightly less (Maybe I just want so see that), maybe 25km/h for each 1000m. This would result in 415km/h (=260mph).

Of course that won't help much against the 460/490 km/h of the Bf 109.

IMHO the base speeds are not that badly implemented compared to historical values. However the WEP, which was historically available for the Bf 109 only for take-off and up to 1-1.5km gives the in-game Bf 109 a huge speed advantage.

I agree with all but the "the base speeds are not that badly implemented compared to historical values". The Ia's base speed of 240 mph with NO boost cut out control modelled in this game make them easy meat for 109's in the vast majority of online action. Yes, I would prefer to engage 109's above 16,000 feet but frequently there is no choice -- nor initiative -- possible in online action.

The devs must be aware of this inequity and prefer the 109's to have the overwhelming speed advantage in low altitude engagements; otherwise they would have corrected it a year ago with a hotfix. Now it's apparent that they've chosen to further widen the gap in low level performance for reasons of their own. Many CoD 109 pilots are pleased by this, but others have voiced concern at what they themselves perceive to be a deterioration in gameplay in terms of challenging opposition.

So be it.

[mazex]

Thanks for the update B6!

/mazex

[Osprey]

These graphs only show performance from 2000/3000m and up, whereas the previous graphs showed performance from 0m and up.

It's very interesting to note that between 3000 and 5000m, the patched 109E4 performs better than RL, whereas both the Rotol Hurri and the MkIa Spitfire perform worse than RL at these altitudes.

Please can we see graphs for the Spits and Hurris from 0m and up, so we can make a true comparison?

Many Thanks.

Thanks for these BlackSix, very interesting stuff.

Yeah it looks like that with these graphs @3km the Spitfire is 50-60kmph slower than the 109. I am staying calm ;) because you have the flight model data for the 87 octane (6.25lbs) model of the RAF fighters which are not Battle of Britain fighters

Please refer to the bug 174 (in my signature) to get details on the correct 100 octane (12lbs) RAF fighters.

And for the punters, please upvote that bug :)

[SEE]

I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.

[Osprey]

Im flying the Spit 1a very often in this period and, if i well understand the graph, i never was able to reach 310 mph=500 kmh in level flight. At most i can reach 260 mph. Probably im making something wrong.

Calculate for True Air Speed from your Indicated Air Speed. They are very different.

[fruitbat]

I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.

Going to be a bit of a problem when the enemies bombers are flying at @4000m though.

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

[Osprey]

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)

I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.


I am pretty sure it is correct. Remember that these are modelled from data supplied from RAE that was using 87 octane fuel. The 100 octane (12lbs) modell is considerably faster and not modelled (refer to my bug link

The test supplied was for propellers I believe, lots of different data on the trialled props.

[fruitbat]

Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)


done a while back;)

[smink1701]

Looking good.

[topgum]

..... Many CoD 109 pilots are pleased by this, but others have voiced concern at what they themselves perceive to be a deterioration in gameplay in terms of challenging opposition.

So be it.

The most amazing thing to me in any combatsim is to figure out the performance-( and allroundskills) of EACH fightermodel. But the gap in Low altitudes between red and blue fighters will be too big to get this kind of fun!
:(

[SEE]

Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)
I am pretty sure it is correct. Remember that these are modelled from data supplied from RAE that was using 87 octane fuel. The 100 octane (12lbs) modell is considerably faster and not modelled (refer to my bug link

The test supplied was for propellers I believe, lots of different data on the trialled props.

What I see is that the current Mk1a is closer to the test graph up to 6000m but the patch will impose an unecessary reduction in the speed - that is what I don't understand.

So why make it slower when it is more or less correct to 6000m and the problem was the dip above 6000m (which will be corrected) or am i missing something here?

[bw_wolverine]

Going to be a bit of a problem when the enemies bombers are flying at @4000m though.

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I am staying calm ;) because you have the flight model data for the 87 octane (6.25lbs) model of the RAF fighters which are not Battle of Britain fighters

It doesn't even match the 87 octane test figs for N3171, let alone 100 octane (yes, I know about the lack of armour and IFF).

320mph @ 10,000ft, which is what the 'real life' curve shows (Boscombe Down, March 1940), against 490kph @ 3000m (1C Maddox Games), .

Even with my crappy maths doing the conversion 490kph is about 305mph @ 9842ft, and the patch is worse below 18,000ft than the current Ia.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

Agree.

Which means when "Ju88's spotted over Oye Plage" we'll need to fly 180 degrees AWAY from the target in order to intercept! LOL

(Just kidding.........I hope! ;) )

[bw_wolverine]

Agree.

Which means when "Ju88's spotted over Oye Plage" we'll need to fly 180 degrees AWAY from the target in order to intercept! LOL

(Just kidding.........I hope! ;) )

We just have to be in the air already. Treat every log in as a SCRAMBLE TO 18,000 FT! Get up as fast as you can and stay there.

Don't go down.

Don't do it.

Intercept bombers by diving down, attacking, and coming back up. Don't setup on their tail and shoot away. Take a quick hit and come back up. You'll gradually lose altitude, but claw as much back as you can with every strike.

Historical performance or otherwise, our CloD Spitfires and Hurricanes do not compete with the 109s on level footing.

100 octane fuel, blah blah blah. We're not going to get it. Better to start trying to figure out ways to compete with the planes we have now than the planes we're never going to have.

So altitude and a wing man who knows what he's doing. Those are the two things we could potentially use to level things up.

Enjoy the Channel while it lasts. Everyone flying now is going to be moving to the Russian front when it comes.

EDIT: As for the graph that points out a Spitfire advantage around 22,000+ ft? I'd love to do some trials when the patch comes and see. It'd be nice if they fixed the dot issue for spotting planes to make flying this high useful for a lot of people (especially those of us without perfect vision).

[pstyle]

100 octane fuel, blah blah blah. We're not going to get it. Better to start trying to figure out ways to compete with the planes we have now than the pl.

what a shame.

[SiThSpAwN]

what a shame.

Well I am surprised we are getting any FM updates with this patch, I mean with all the work going into the graphics engine. As well, once they pin down the graphics engine, updates to the FM should be much easier to release...

[ATAG_Snapper]

What, no snivelling to Dowding that our Ia's don't fly up to speed? That the 109's are NASTY to us? What kind of RAF stiff-upper-lip attitude is that????? LOL

[pstyle]

Well I am surprised we are getting any FM updates with this patch, I mean with all the work going into the graphics engine. As well, once they pin down the graphics engine, updates to the FM should be much easier to release...

hope so.

like I said, it's only a shame (and only a game). I'm not going to die over it.
Overall I'm happy with the game.

[Kwiatek]

Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

I don't have any other graphs or information now.

Hmm these graphs surly not show 100 Octan fuel performanace implement - emergency +12 lbs boost - so i suspected it is not implement into game - really not good.

109 E in patch would have much more close to reality and best results performance - which is good of course.

But looking at British main fighters performacne i really see not good things.

Hurricane MK1 is too slow even for + 6 1/2 lbs performacne:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg


Spitfire MK1 also not quite correct even for +6 1/2 lbs performance. At lower alts too slow and have to high alt FTH.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171speed.jpg

There is a enough info about Hurricane and SPitfire MK1 performance i really wonder why 1C cant do it like it should be ????

I know that it could be possible to make it better even in old IL2 engine????

Hey really You can do it better????? Devs there is really enough info to do it correct. Really.

Im dissapointment for these :(

[ATAG_Snapper]

Kwiatek, the charts you present are accurate, I'm sure, and are on public record. After today's admissions, I honestly do not believe accuracy is desired nor sought after in this game. It's a shame, but I believe that to be the reality.

[Insuber]

Calm down ... did anyone compare the above charts with B6 ones? I don't think so. And btw, not a word about the fact that today the Hurricane is grossly overmodeled and requires a serious correction?

[fruitbat]

Calm down ... did anyone compare the above charts with B6 ones? I don't think so. And btw, not a word about the fact that today the Hurricane is grossly overmodeled and requires a serious correction?

umm yes they did, thats the problem, and no one here is denying the hurri is over modelled at the moment.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Well, Insuber, I can tell you I'm deadly calm. It's 1C that claims the Hurricane Rotol is overmodelled -- and you're saying it's grossly overmodelled. I don't believe it is. What I DO know is that the Red fliers have been dealt an unfair hand for a year but waited patiently for 1C to get things sorted out with the graphic coding problems. We did NOT expect further unfairness to be meted out in terms of RAF flight modelling. We haven't been as vocal about it this past year as apparently we should have been.

Charts? Charts haven't done any of the RAF fighters in this game much good, have they?

[Insuber]

umm yes they did, thats the problem, and no one here is denying the hurri is over modelled at the moment.


Then those who did the comparison, could possibly put their data on a graph, as B6 did? I did some random checks of the Hurricane I curves and I found interesting things. BTW what's the source of the Kwiatek speed/alt charts for Hurricanes ? And why they tell different figures?

[bw_wolverine]

I don't understand something.

Weeks and weeks ago, everyone was saying that the only aircraft that had historically accurate performance was the Spitfire IIa and that the other aircraft needed to have their performance increased as well.

Now, suddenly, because 1C has decided to reduce its performance, people are popping up saying that the Spitfire IIa was over modelled. And now that the Hurricane is being reduced, people are claiming that it has always been overmodelled as well.

What new historical research and findings appeared between those posts and these posts that has altered everyones views?

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I personally think that the speed advantage of the spit 1 at high alt is great! I am looking forward to taking on the 109s now in my spitty.

[ElAurens]

Meh.

See you on the outskirts of Moscow, comrades.

:rolleyes:

At least the G.50 might be fun to fly after the patch.

[Insuber]

I don't understand something.

Weeks and weeks ago, everyone was saying that the only aircraft that had historically accurate performance was the Spitfire IIa and that the other aircraft needed to have their performance increased as well.

Now, suddenly, because 1C has decided to reduce its performance, people are popping up saying that the Spitfire IIa was over modelled. And now that the Hurricane is being reduced, people are claiming that it has always been overmodelled as well.

What new historical research and findings appeared between those posts and these posts that has altered everyones views?

The fact that the Hurricane was overmodelled was discussed before, you can find many posts about that, e.g.:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27311

As you see I "popped out" 6 months ago.

Cheers!

[Jatta Raso]

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

for the sake of gameplay all servers must unrestrict Spits IIa, then if you fly blue you get what you get.

unless the blues wanna start shooting each other that is.. or the whole thing gets totally ruined; Spit Ia getting porked even further, i read it and i can't believe it.. seriously devs, GREAT JOB :rolleyes:

[Flanker35M]

S!

To me the Hurricane seems not to lost that much, less than 20km/h from actual numbers compared to patch tests. So that is within piloting error. And again remember the game has problems above 7km altitude and up to that altitude Hurricane seems to be very close to actual numbers, even a bit faster at some point. As Hurricane (Rotol) is now, it is overmodelled and chart clearly shows that.

Spitfire is a bit strange but again within 20km/h, give or take and the higher you go the closer it is again. Maybe some tweaks are done to it?

I just wonder about this 100oct fuzz. You can not fly with that 12lbs all day long thus having those speeds at ALL times and altitudes. Even with 100oct you have a 100% value that is for sure NOT this 12lbs value. Same applies to Bf109E too, can't measure max speed at WEP.

And hopefully if they ever implement 12lbs the 5min limit will be done so that it is not a magic button that can be abused without overheat or damage. Bf109E has the WEP bug which is hopefully fixed soon. So there you go, no bias. Just want it accurately done. Like always, thanks for the update BlackSix.

[JTDawg]

It has never been about fair or historical!!! 1c has always gutted,FM when it came to allied planes--- just look at 46 fb ace ex pac pf. the russian an german planes always out climb out fly out turn out run. I can go on an on, But whats the point !!! they will always make the game this way,simply becouse they can't take a allied plane being better ,p51 p38 etc etc the list just keeps getting bigger!!! they might as well put jet packs on their planes to start with,even after hard evidence gets to them with real info.they ignore!! As the years go by,waiting for this new patch, Here is something to chew on, most people that buy this game an your others are mostly 30 to 60 years old!! showing me how your sequal is before you have this game fixed ,is not the smartest thing to do!!! shows your balls though!! but i will never buy your next game or anything else you put out till this game is fixed,!!! P.S. THIS POST WILL PROB. BE DELETED AS A NEY SAYER AGAINT THEIR BROKEN GAME , BUT KEEP SHOWING ME YOUR NEXT GAME TO RUB SALT IN THE WOUND THAT JUST KEEPS GETTING BIGGER!!! there use to be 3 number 1 lies no.1 I sent it out last week . no.2 the checks in the mail, no.3 i promise i won't cum in your mouth , and now you have given this group a new 1 . patch any day now lmao :shock:

[ATAG_Dutch]

Weeks and weeks ago, everyone was saying that the only aircraft that had historically accurate performance was the Spitfire IIa and that the other aircraft needed to have their performance increased as well.

Now, suddenly, because 1C has decided to reduce its performance, people are popping up saying that the Spitfire IIa was over modelled. And now that the Hurricane is being reduced, people are claiming that it has always been overmodelled as well.

What new historical research and findings appeared between those posts and these posts that has altered everyones views?

None whatsoever.

I also found that the in-game Rotol Hurri performed almost identically to the data provided here;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/l2026.html

[Buchon]

Then those who did the comparison, could possibly put their data on a graph, as B6 did?

Yes pls, I did a Spitfire graph check between the one provided by B6 and the graph provided by Kwiatek and the performance line is equal of what is in the patch.

I just wasted my time on this, did you guys just put the graphs to rant without check or just you guys are doing lobbing for your favorite plane.

The Spitfire is porked just like the 109 is, and is caused by a FM that should be upgraded to provide different octanes and boost behaviors.

Anyway this thread is a trolls magnet so by now is useless.

[Jatta Raso]

just what will keep the 109s from diving to deck with tail between their legs and make a run for it every time a non rookie Spit's on their six?? they do that already!!! with even slower Spits on deck, might as well open them a freeway...

now that the Spits IIa are getting less power, either they make an appearance as a fair choice on all servers, or i'd be guessing what blues would be afraid about; it's very easy to have solutions with the best performing plane, even when they come down to the famous run away most times..

[Ataros]

If you have reliable data please update this issue on Spit Ia (http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84) and create new one for Hurricane. It will be much easier to post just one-two links for luthier when he brings the patch.

BTW. Someone mentioned that above graphs are calculated and not direct measurement results for lower altitudes. Is there any better data?

[Insuber]

Do the simple exercise of making a paper graph of the Hurricane I, using Kwiatek's charts and B6's data (in game now) ... the actual game has +60 km/h more at 5000 m than Kwiatek's 12 lbs Hurricane I, and +105 kmh at 6000 m, with a comfortable +25 kmh at 4000 m.

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ... ;-)

On the other hand I agree that the 12 lbs boost / 100 octane fuel must be modeled, of course with a limitation on overheating and engine life as in RL, to correct the Hurricane I performance below 3000 m which looks excessively penalized, IF KWIATEK CHARTS ARE ACCURATE


Cheers!
Ins

[pstyle]

Do the simple exercise of making a paper graph of the Hurricane I, using Kwiatek's charts and B6's data (in game now) ... the actual game has +60 km/h more at 5000 m than Kwiatek's 12 lbs Hurricane I, and +105 kmh at 6000 m, with a comfortable +25 kmh at 4000 m.

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ... ;-)


If this performance issue is true, then of course it should be corrected.

As for "no red pilot complained" - I've seen comments from red AND blue pilots asking for "all" A/C to be closer to historical.

[bw_wolverine]

The fact that the Hurricane was overmodelled was discussed before, you can find many posts about that, e.g.:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27311

As you see I "popped out" 6 months ago.

Cheers!

Reading in that thread it seems that the problem wasn't the Hurricane, it was the lack of speed in the 109. Which, I might add, seems to be being addressed! Lucky blue pilot!

I read several people in that thread (not all of them Red pilots!) agreeing that the Hurricane was more or less accurate. So I'm not sure why you are claiming that thread as evidence that the Hurricane has always been understood as too fast in the game.

I don't really care if it is or isn't. I just want it to be accurate so that the majority agree that is accurate.

My point here is that there doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of non-biased opinions here, for or against ANY plane. I'm sure everyone posts with the idea that "MY info is accurate and unbiased. THAT guy is being a fanboy." But looking back, it seems that our 'unbiased' opinions seem to change strangely in correllation the patch FM changes.

Whatever. Like I said. I'm giving up trying to get any FM adjustments. I'm gonna fly with what I've been given. It's a nice aircraft combat sim. Battle of Britain sim, it ain't.

[David Hayward]

Reading in that thread it seems that the problem wasn't the Hurricane, it was the lack of speed in the 109. Which, I might add, seems to be being addressed! Lucky blue pilot!

I read several people in that thread (not all of them Red pilots!) agreeing that the Hurricane was more or less accurate. So I'm not sure why you are claiming that thread as evidence that the Hurricane has always been understood as too fast in the game.

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

[Osprey]

100 octane fuel, blah blah blah. We're not going to get it. Better to start trying to figure out ways to compete with the planes we have now than the planes we're never going to have.


It's the #3 ranked bug. Apply pressure and we have every chance of a result - to me it's not a luxury, it's what was in the battle and everything else is wrong. Faith brother ;)

[Insuber]

Reading in that thread it seems that the problem wasn't the Hurricane, it was the lack of speed in the 109. Which, I might add, seems to be being addressed! Lucky blue pilot!

I read several people in that thread (not all of them Red pilots!) agreeing that the Hurricane was more or less accurate. So I'm not sure why you are claiming that thread as evidence that the Hurricane has always been understood as too fast in the game.


Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!

[bw_wolverine]

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

[Kurfürst]

Red reactions in this thread remind me to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gQozw40Mso

[David Hayward]

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Personally, I am SHOCKED that there are players who are impartially lobbying for their favorite aircraft. SHOCKED!!!

[Osprey]

Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!


I don't care about relativity to other types, I purely care about each type having accuracy.

87 octane it is, let's press for 12lbs boost (yes yes for the recommended limits!). This brings me to the next problem, that the Spitfire out-turns the Hurricane, and the 109 can turn with the Hurricane unless flap is used *note this is a generalisation, I know that speed has effects . So, the Hurricane should be the best turner, if that it unchanged it's going to become a deathtrap with the correction to speed.

As for online, I'm expecting a lot of LW complaint, hissyfits and general rudeness from the obtuse. It's been a tough year for the RAF, now I will be leading my crew up over 6km+ on the hunt, on top of the LW, the tables will turn :D I can deal with speed loss because I will still reach 400mph in a dive to tonk down the unsuspecting 109 :cool:

[JG52Uther]

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

[Insuber]

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

(...)
On the other hand I agree that the 12 lbs boost / 100 octane fuel must be modeled, of course with a limitation on overheating and engine life as in RL, to correct the Hurricane I performance below 3000 m which looks excessively penalized, IF KWIATEK CHARTS ARE ACCURATE


The first condition is true, I'm waiting for the second one ... :-D

[David Hayward]

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

[Kurfürst]

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

The biggest single disadvantage of Reds is that they have a far larger planeset, and they constantly have to fly different types which would require different flight styles, but its impossible to master them all.

Compare that to anyone who just flies to 109. Or the 190. Its no wonders

I am not worried for the Russia 1941 scenario. Mig 3 was essentially the BEST high altitude fighter of its time, and the Yak 1 was decent. Armament is light, but so is the 109F-2s.. You just don't have to fly them like the Russians flew them in 1941 under the well known handicaps. Just like nobody is forcing RAF pilots to fly target in rigid three plane formations.

[Robo.]

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ... ;-)

Insuber, lots of us (what you call red pilots) did complain about it - the fact that Hurricane is faster than Spitfire anc climbs better is simply ridicilous and no virtual RAF pilot I know agreed on that.

[Osprey]

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...


Yes I wonder if they'll have laminated panels peeling off wings in dives and engines conking out because the build quality was so crap.

Server owners will have to script in random failures for Russian fliers for historical accuracy ;)

[ATAG_Snapper]

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

David, my priorities in life don't mandate me proving myself to you. The data has already been presented in this forum, as you well know. Or you may prefer to use Kurfurst's "data" since it would no doubt suit you better.

Whatever. I'm not going to indulge your wish for a "chart war" -- that's been done to death already. Not whining -- just saying we know the current flight models are wrong and the patch is making them worse. Unlike yourself, we actually play the game and we know what is -- is. Just don't expect us to believe otherwise.

[pstyle]

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

there is certainly no data here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

A link that has not been posted more than any other link to date with respect to this issue.

Neither is there any data here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

neither link has ever been posted on these forums... over, and over, and over again

[David Hayward]

Unlike yourself, we actually play the game and we know what is -- is. Just don't expect us to believe otherwise.

Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

[pstyle]

Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

Actually, not too far off ;) and I'm a red-mostly pilot.

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

David, I snapped at you and I sincerely apologize for that. It's borne of frustration and it was wrong for me to direct it at you --it was a fair question you posed of me. Plus, for all I know you may (and likely do) have hundreds of hours logged online/offline under a different name -- I of all people should know that. Again, very sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

I'm ending my part of the discussion here, mainly because of the frustration and disappointment at my end. When it ceases to be fun, then what's the point?

Hopefully others with more debating skills and/or motivation can continue this with you.

Snapper

[David Hayward]

Actually, not too far off ;)

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

So, B6's numbers are good, assuming the lower octane. Obviously they should add a 100 octane version.

[pstyle]

So, B6's numbers are good, assuming the lower octane. Obviously they should add a 100 octane version.

yeah, I think B6's numbers are pretty close at least from 3000m up.

Like I said; it would be nice to see the figures for sea-level too.

And you're right, some modelling of the 100 octane would be ideal, especially given it's almost ubiquitous use from April/ May 1940 onwards in the RAF.

[Buchon]

some modelling of the 100 octane would be ideal, especially given it's almost ubiquitous use from April/ May 1940 onwards in the RAF.

It´s coming :

http://i49.tinypic.com/2nrmw0k.jpg

So yeah, that´s lower octane.

[David Hayward]

David, I snapped at you and I sincerely apologize for that. It's borne of frustration and it was wrong for me to direct it at you --it was a fair question you posed of me. Plus, for all I know you may (and likely do) have hundreds of hours logged online/offline under a different name -- I of all people should know that. Again, very sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

I'm ending my part of the discussion here, mainly because of the frustration and disappointment at my end. When it ceases to be fun, then what's the point?

Hopefully others with more debating skills and/or motivation can continue this with you.

Snapper

I don't have a lot of hours, but the number of hours playing the game does not change the 1940s test data. I'm not trying to debate this, I'd just like to know why everyone is angry when the test data appears to match game data. If the problem is octane used for testing, then they should model 100 octane in the game.

[Osprey]

Yup, could've read that in my first post pages ago though.......

It's 87 octane model as per bug #84 by klem, but unfortunately, and us RAF are all to blame for not picking this up really, the modelling of 87 octane is historically incorrect for the Battle of Britain.

[pstyle]

I don't have a lot of hours, but the number of hours playing the game does not change the 1940s test data. I'm not trying to debate this, I'd just like to know why everyone is angry when the test data appears to match game data. If the problem is octane used for testing, then they should model 100 octane in the game.

David, I think the 87/100 octane is the real issue here.

[Kurfürst]

Yup, could've read that in my first post pages ago though.......

It's 87 octane model as per bug #84 by klem, but unfortunately, and us RAF are all to blame for not picking this up really, the modelling of 87 octane is historically incorrect for the Battle of Britain.

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

[Insuber]

Insuber, lots of us (what you call red pilots) did complain about it - the fact that Hurricane is faster than Spitfire anc climbs better is simply ridicilous and no virtual RAF pilot I know agreed on that.

It was a stupid joke and I apologize to the red pilots. Humor doesn't pass well on forums, I must remind it.

[fruitbat]

well, i guess i'll just keep on playing il2 and HSFX, and wait for Moscow, apart from the odd bimble.

[fruitbat]

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

Even if i agreed with you, the airfields on the CLOD map are those stations regardless......

[Fenrir]

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

Yes.

Well, if all of one half are belonging to Fighter Command and based in the south and south east England then well... you do the math.

[Kurfürst]

Yes.

Well, if all of one half are belonging to Fighter Command and based in the south and south east England then well... you do the math.

According to whom..? Luftluuver? :D :D :D

Seriously, based on the availabe combat reports etc., such a list of "100octanened" fighter stations was put together a long time and many post ago. I see a lot of stations of 11 Group w/o 100 octane. See: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=250748&postcount=43

[GraveyardJimmy]

It´s coming :

http://i49.tinypic.com/2nrmw0k.jpg

So yeah, that´s lower octane.

The thing is, surely they could just make two version of the spit and hurri flight model. Rather than model the effect of different grade fuel on the engine, have a spit 1a- 100 and a spit1a- 87 with different characteristics at different altitudes. If they can change aircraft individually (as they have for the new patch) then hopefully it is possible.

Or is it perhaps because it is tied into boost it might be that the change is not plane specific but (game) engine-wide?

[41Sqn_Banks]

The thing is, surely they could just make two version of the spit and hurri flight model. Rather than model the effect of different grade fuel on the engine, have a spit 1a- 100 and a spit1a- 87 with different characteristics at different altitudes. If they can change aircraft individually (as they have for the new patch) then hopefully it is possible.


Actually it should be really easy. Simply disable the "boost control cut-out"-button on the 87 octane models.

[Kurfürst]

Actually it should be really easy. Simply disable the "boost control cut-out"-button on the 87 octane models.

I am not sure if its workable. In all Il-2s, WEP and non-WEP performance were rather strangely related and not quite close to real world equivalents in my experience... dont get me wrong, I like the idea, just not sure if its compatible with how the Il-2 engine handles these things.

[Buchon]

The thing is, surely they could just make two version of the spit and hurri flight model. Rather than model the effect of different grade fuel on the engine, have a spit 1a- 100 and a spit1a- 87 with different characteristics at different altitudes. If they can change aircraft individually (as they have for the new patch) then hopefully it is possible.

Or is it perhaps because it is tied into boost it might be that the change is not plane specific but (game) engine-wide?

A 100 octanes version could be a fix but guess that they plan to model a more complex FM that includes a better behavior of octane changes.

I think that is a matter of resources, is not a secret that they are writing a upgrade version of the FM with better high altitude behavior and features like propellers turbulence, along with better aerodynamics.

So now, the FM code is opened and the FM coder is immerse in change thousands of lines of code to add Boost behavior and all that.

[SEE]

I don't have a lot of hours, but the number of hours playing the game does not change the 1940s test data. I'm not trying to debate this, I'd just like to know why everyone is angry when the test data appears to match game data. If the problem is octane used for testing, then they should model 100 octane in the game.

I don't see a lot of anger David or any reason to be 'shocked'. Of the many threads regards FM this is one is pretty reasonable (so far) and the responses to the graphs on the Russian forums have been similar from what I have heard.

I simply don't understand why the proposed FM (for the Spit Mk1a at altitudes below 6000m) has been changed given that it seems to be very close to the test flight graph as currently modelled in game.

Not 'whining' just asking a question. I fly at altitude but would still like to know the reason for that decision and one that I am unaware of.

[SlipBall]

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)


That then would explain the development team's stance on this subject, they may have figures/charts/graphs/testimonials on fuel distribution of the 100oc .

[Kurfürst]

It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Twelve pages on something that nobody yet has tried out *sigh*

[Fenrir]

According to whom..? Luftluuver? :D :D :D

Seriously, based on the availabe combat reports etc., such a list of "100octanened" fighter stations was put together a long time and many post ago. I see a lot of stations of 11 Group w/o 100 octane. See: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=250748&postcount=43

Precisely. the only 11 Group airfields I don't see on that list are Manston and Debden. Of those major fields and their primary satellites on the list, only 6 have not got 100 octane by the time of Adler Tag (and that assumes a worst case scenario that the August fields did not get it till the end of the month).

Some of those airfields you mention - e.g. Martlesham, Detling, West Malling - are barely that - they are at worst meadows which can support the landing and takeoff of aircraft or at best have minimal infrastructure and hangarage. Aircraft were generally not based at these fileds overnight but flown to and from the parent field at dawn and dusk. Smilarly the parent airfield was responsible for the supply and logistics of these smaller satellittes.

That looks like some good research btw. Still would need to see the source docs for proof of derived data.

[fruitbat]

in that thread that Kurfurst posted from, a later collated list from combat reports,


The following Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons are known to have used 100 octane fuel before or during the BoB:
1, 17, 19, 41, 43, 54, 56, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 79, 85, 87, 92, 141, 145, 151, 152, 222, 229, 234, 245, 249, 264, 303, 602, 603, 605, 609, 610, 611, 616

These squadrons were stationed at the following airfields (bold text) at sometime during the BoB.


11 Group

RAF Biggin Hill

- RAF West Malling

RAF Debden

- RAF Martlesham Heath

RAF Hornchurch

- RAF Hawkinge
- RAF Gravesend
- RAF Manston, night fighter base
- RAF Rochford

RAF Kenley

- RAF Croydon

RAF Northolt

RAF North Weald

- RAF Martlesham
- RAF Stapleford

RAF Tangmere

- RAF West Malling
- RAF Ford
- RAF Lee on Solent, RN airfield
- RAF Gosport, RN airfield
- RAF Thorney Island
- RAF Westhampnett


Not sure which Sector airfield these were assigned to but as all the sector airfields had 100 octane fuel, these to would need a stock of 100 octane fuel.

RAF Detling

RAF Eastchurch

RAF Hendon

RAF Lympne


In 10 Group, 5 of the 6 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 12 Group, 7 of the 8 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 13 Group, 7 of the 10 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel. Of the 3 that possible didn't have stocks of 100 octane fuel, one was based in the Shetland Is. and the other in the Orkney Is.



There is some really good info from all participants and from both sides in that thread amongst the arguing.

[Bounder!]

It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

Respectfully disagree. Blacksix has very kindly posted graphs detailing proposed / planned changes to the flight models of the Hurricane and Spit Ia on the CoD public forums where they are open to discussion. Surely if people have an opinion about these proposed changes it is appropriate to comment upon them now so that the devs are aware rather than ignorant of any problems / concerns e.g. we posted the proposed changes to the FM on the forums and no-one objected so what’s the problem...

So with that said, I have to say I am disappointed as others are - we seem to have Spits and Hurries modelled on 87 octane (only), and incidentally with performances lower than 87 let alone 100 octane. The most perplexing is the change to the Spits performance below 6000m, which is being reduced to a speed below that currently modelled in game and below the ‘historical’ valves currently presented in the graph.

Like most who post on the board and in this thread I want to see accurate and realistic modelling of all aircraft in the game, not for game play sake but because CoD is a WW2 combat flight simulator.

[Bokononist]

It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

Fair point, but as someone who tries to keep an open mind I'm finding it hard to make sense of the info from the devs. It does seem that even in comparison to the data that they're working from, that their flight models are consistently worse, and that's ignoring the fact that they're not even trying to model 100 octane, the fighters that fought this battle. It doesn't even make sense from a partisan point of view, the Germans screwed the soviets over during ww2 in the worst way posible, why would they be biased toward the luftwaffe?
All I can say is that is with all these changes is let's see how it works out after the patch is live, and that any servers that don't allow the spit IIa at the moment should let it back on and see how things play out. It may not turn out to be so bad as the red side think it will.
Before I sign off and order another pint, there is one other thing to bear in mind, the graphs provided only pertain to velocity at altitude, where the spit had the advantage was turn rates, the graphs we have been provided do not take this into account. Maybe 1C know what they're doing and we'll get an awesomely balanced mp after the patch, Maybe not, but I am going to reserve my full vitriol until after the patch is released.

[zapatista]

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.



Blacksix,

extensive data has been provided to you and 1C for some time now that all hurricanes and spitfire squadrons were provided with 100 octane fuel AT THE START OF THE HISTORICAL BOB DATE, yet MG and 1C still dont seem to understand they have used older 87 octane fuel data and you thereby crippled the hurricanes and spitfires in their engagements with 109's

either cripple the 109 in speed to make both planes wrong (but both equally proportionally reduced in speed compared to historical data), which obviously would be silly, OR GIVE US 100 OCTANE FUEL FOR THE SPITFIRES AND HURRICANES !! frankly, i wouldnt bother bringing out the "post-beta patch" (once the gfx engine performance is fixed, and you are adding game bug fixes) without it, since we might as well all go back to using il2-1946 then

the single most important aspect of a ww2 FLIGHT SIMULATOR is to have the performance characteristics between those competitive fighter aircraft correct, if that isnt the case then dont bother wasting development time on making pretty houses, driving cars, or other elements that ENHANCE the core flightsim aspect of the game. please understand those priorities correctly :)

[jibo]

Yes

hopefully the adjustments needed on the rendering side is no a big deal

*fingers crossed* i'am with you

[CWMV]

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument, for the simple reason that neither side has been able to act like G.D. adults with the data. Every time its brought up both sides, blue and red pilots, fly off the handle and act worse than children-so you know what, for me default to 87.

Regardless of that, this kinda sucks. I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time, but that doesn't mean I want to see everyone else cut off at the knees. I'm sure most of the blue pilots feel the same way.
Sadly the charts really don't match even 87 octane. I found that really hard to believe until I checked. Even Wiki has the MkI doing about 591kph at 18K feet...not in that graph. And that's just the first place I looked. I'm sure further searching would yield similar results.

Do I believe that the 109 was the best fighter of the period in question? Without a doubt. But I know that the Spit was a really, REALLY close second.
If these graphs are going to really be what we see in game, that will not be the case at all.

[zapatista]

Actually, not too far off ;) and I'm a red-mostly pilot.

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

its like a perpetual ground hog day here

extensive information has been provided on this issue this from various sources in the last year in this forum, it is CONCLUSIVE AND BEYOND ANY DOUBT that hurricanes and spitfires had 100% octane fuel available, and just by your own quoted figures that would give them at least a 14% speed disadvantage

to quote but a few sources

Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." (ref 33). As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. (ref 34)

and
The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". (ref 35) The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. (ref 36)

and
Jeffrey Quill recalled: It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb. (ref 37)

and ........Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons. (ref 38.)

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

there is no excuse for still allowing these types of errors in CoD !!

[zapatista]

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel.

you have been shown to be so unreliable and deliberately misleading in the past on numerous occasions, that anything you say on the ww2 era aircraft is meaningless

[zapatista]

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)


Seriously, based on the availabe combat reports etc., such a list of "100octanened" fighter stations was put together a long time and many post ago. I see a lot of stations of 11 Group w/o 100 octane. See: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=250748&postcount=43

you are yet again being deliberately misleading and misrepresent facts, to suit your own personal agenda, not really surprising given your track record in that regard

that list made by TheGrunch in that post is simply a list of direct reports from certain pilots in some specific squadrons stating they were using 100 octane fuel (which is entirely normal, since we already know it was being supplied extensively during that period). and a significant number of the pilots refer to it because compared to pre-BoB performance it is an important issue for most of them

what that list does NOT say is that there is somewhere an equal list of reports from all other 50% of squadrons and pilots that they were using 87 octane ! i challenge you directly here, and either put up or shut up ! you now go and try to provide proof of this misleading information you are trying to peddle here !! (no, and german war propaganda does not count). find it from brittish wartime sources (or extensive analyses from fuel samples taken by germans from many downed or captured brittish aircraft of that era), quote it directly, and give your specific sources. you cant , i know you cant, because it doesnt exist (except in the fictional reality you live in ) :)

numerous other posters in this forum, including me providing several in this thread, have on the other hand already provided our information that directly indicates 100 octane fuel was available to most fighter squadrons FROM THE START OF BoB, and that if any pilots didnt have it at one point or another THEY WOULD BE THE EXCEPTION. your deliberate misrepresentation and misleading posts do not change that or magically alter history !

get it ? the absence of direct quotes of 100 octane in the other 50% of squadrons he didnt list (provided by TheGrunch) is NOT evidence of the use of 87 octane fuel in the rest of them, simple really ? but of course comprehending it requires you to be intellectually honest and deal with known historical facts in a logical and impartial manner

[bw_wolverine]

what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.


Relax! I'm on your side. I'm just tired of the whole thing. I've moved past the 'anger' stage of this whole debate and moved into 'acceptance'.

There is very little Battle of Britain in this Battle of Britain simulator. I was hoping it would get there. I'm now completely convinced that 1C guys are pretty much just tired of the whole debacle and are anxious to just move on.

After this patch is released, I'm pretty sure they're going to be full steam ahead on Battle of Moscow. I can't see them releasing another big patch for Cliffs of Dover before that game is out and they can marry the two titles together somehow.

So what we have after this patch is pretty much what we're going to have until the next game. I'm pretty much convinced of it. So we accept that this isn't a real Battle of Britain simulator and just get on with it. The game is still fun! With a patch that fixes the crashing (fingers crossed) it'll be even more fun. We might even be able to stage some real Battle of Britain type campaigns. But I'm sure that 1C is done with this theatre. I don't want to be sure, but I am.

So as much as I want to be optimistic and fired up about making changes to correct errorsand whatnot, I just can't see it happening. The direction that they've taken with the FM adjustments seem to suggest there's no interest in modelling the RAF aircraft with the same degree of fidelity as the German stuff. Possibly because they really honestly don't care that much about them. After all, the German planes are the ones that matter for Battle of Moscow, not the RAF ones.

It's our tough luck. And so, to deal with it, we have to make and use tactics that suit the aircraft we have, not the one we want. I'm pretty sure that the Blue players aren't using historical tactics for the most part. Why should we?

[CWMV]

you have been shown to be so unreliable and deliberately misleading in the past on numerous occasions, that anything you say on the ww2 era aircraft is meaningless

And you have demonstrated at every possible opportunity that you are willing to go to any length to push an agenda.
Regardless of weather your right or wrong you come off sounding like a tool. You, and the people like you that go SO over the top when it comes to certain issues, discredit whatever point it is your trying to sell.
Christ, take a break eh? Calm down, go get laid or SOMETHING!

For the record, NZtyphoon actually did apologize and explained that he had a somewhat personal stake in the argument, but at least he recognized that things have gotten a little bit out of control.

Seriously Zap, if you want people to listen, be a little less zealous and let the fact speak for themselves.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Zapatista, please calm down. You are crying like a kid with a lollipop pulled out of mouth. Do you really think ANY player of this GAME want it to be handicapped in any way, be it their favorite plane or not. I for sure don't. But by judging your outburst it seems you need every single thing that would give an I-WIN button over the German planes and psuhing that agenda with foam spewing. Really does not help it as said above. Slam the facts on the table and the devs figure the rest. Not a single "thread hundred+ pages of foaming about an agenda" will help.

And even the game would simulate every single plane down to last rivet there would be someone to whine because they do not get same performance for some reason. So after all it is the pilot not the machine ;) After the patch is released will for sure do tests either offline or if enough people are interested online to gather data how things have changed rather than foaming here before the damn patch is even out. ;)

[ATAG_Bliss]

You guys can argue back and forth about the performance of the FMs but just remember this, when the patch comes out I'm going up in a G50 and going to shoot you all down ;)

[ATAG_Snapper]

You guys can argue back and forth about the performance of the FMs but just remember this, when the patch comes out I'm going up in a G50 and going to shoot you all down ;)


What....the UBER - G50???? LOL

[CWMV]

Not this guy. I just want it to work offline!

[zapatista]

....... be a little less zealous and let the fact speak for themselves.

as in any other exchange where factual and accurate information is presented in a normal way, i am (and have been) happy to respond to any other poster with an exchange of information in a civilized fashion, and the interpretation and relevant meaning can then be debated in a reasonable manner

when however some have been repeatedly shown to be dishonest and to present deliberately misleading information to push their own one sided agenda, and they are doing so yet again in this thread on a topic that is at the heart of this product being a "simulator" (and most here are very concerned about), dont ask me to bring flowers

[41Sqn_Banks]

Will be interesting to see how the Spitfire performs below 3000m.

Some notes about the Bf 109 performance:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=153533&d=1334842797

Anyone else noticed that the "reference graph" of the Bf 109 are factory/manual data? They were not achieved during the actual flight test because the Bf 109 in the test was under-performing.

The "reference graph" of the Spitfire is from a actual flight test, ironically again by a under-performing aircraft (speed dropped from 2800 RPM to 3000 RPM).

In addition WEP of the Bf 109 was only allowed (possible?) for take-off and up to 1-1.5km.

[Kurfürst]

Some notes about the Bf 109 performance:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=153533&d=1334842797

Anyone else noticed that the "reference graph" of the Bf 109 are factory/manual data? They were not achieved during the actual flight test because the Bf 109 in the test was under-performing.

The "reference graph" of the Spitfire is from a actual flight test, ironically again by a under-performing aircraft (speed dropped from 2800 RPM to 3000 RPM).

In addition WEP of the Bf 109 was only allowed (possible?) for take-off and up to 1-1.5km.

For comparison, the actual flight test (note the two lines, the bold one is the speed measured with the engine slightly down on power by about 50-60 PS, the thinner line is the measured performance re-calculated for nominal engine output guaranteed by engine manufacturer)

This has been achieved with 1.33/1.35 ata, which is our firewalled throttle setting in the game, without resorting to the 1-min WEP.

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/files/109v15a_blatt6.jpg

Condition of the airframe :

'The surface was painted after the serial production standard. The engine cowling was still rough, exhaust manifolds (DB-type, made at BFW) were lacking top cover.

2 Cowl- and wing-MGs were installed.
Antenna wire.
Undercarriage retracted, tailwheel out.
For air intake, see the reports drawings.

Radiator cooler flaps were 1/4 open. Coolant temperature observed as constant 90 degrees Celsius.
Oil cooler flaps were closed. Oil temperature observed as 62/82 degrees Celsius.'

IMHO the oil/coolant temperatures are also interesting. Coolant seems to boil rather too quickly in the sim.

The following paper is the official type specification for the Bf 109E. Manufacturer guaranteed these specs within +/- 5 % tolerance.

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E_Bau_speed.png

[zapatista]

judging your outburst it seems you need every single thing that would give an I-WIN button over the German planes and psuhing that agenda ............... Really does not help it

wrong

i dont care if it is blue, red, green or black, what i am asking for is that the figures used to simulate aircraft behavior in CoD are openly provided (like they were in the il2 compare series), and that the correct historical strength/weakness of each aircraft is correctly represented so we can use historically accurate maneuvers and tactics.

the example i gave is for the spitfire, which currently have some significant problems in this regard, and has just been threatened to be neutered even further. there might be (? are) probably some similar issues with some of the blue planes, i have no idea. my CoD install runs very poorly on my mid end pc, so i mostly so far have only limited experience with the spitfire

the whole point is to have the individual planes be able to reproduce their historical weak/strong point, so that no matter what side we fly for we can SIMULATE as close as possible the encounter with our opponent, and can execute appropriate combat maneuvers. that is where the joy lies in a ww2 combat sim, it is why most of us are here ! if one plane rolled faster, let it do so, if another could dive at higher speed before structural failure, let it do so.....etc, that is what we are trying to replicate and simulate


Slam the facts on the table and the devs figure the rest. Not a single "thread hundred+ pages of foaming about an agenda" will help.

for me, and many other that have bought the game, it simply hasnt up-till now functioned well enough to be able to allow full comparisons on each plane performance and a direct comparison to its historical competitive opponent (eg 109 climb rate vs spit, or roll rate etc). what has however been obvious is that both the hurricane and spitfire have not been modeled with 100 octane fuel as they should be, giving for ex the spitfire a 15% speed performance cut, WITH NO SIGN THE DEVELOPERS ARE ABOUT TO EVEN LOOK AT THE ISSUE.

And even the game would simulate every single plane down to last rivet there would be someone to whine because they do not get same performance for some reason

taking a valid argument (lack of 100 octane) to a absurd extreme and compare it to some trivial cosmetic issue is silly and meaningless


So after all it is the pilot not the machine ;)

and that is exactly the type of irrelevant comment that makes it harder for normal posters to have a productive discussion on most technical topics. obviously you'd want to first have the instruments correctly represented and rightly modeled, and only after that make any comments about their use.

[Kurfürst]

It's always interesting to compare the actual sources with the way they are 'represented' on Mike William's website. Often text is 'rephrased' and relevant parts go 'missing'.

its like a perpetual ground hog day here

extensive information has been provided on this issue this from various sources in the last year in this forum, it is CONCLUSIVE AND BEYOND ANY DOUBT that hurricanes and spitfires had 100% octane fuel available, and just by your own quoted figures that would give them at least a 14% speed disadvantage

to quote but a few sources

Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." (ref 33). As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. (ref 34)

The actual text in this source goes as:

'By the time war broke out, the available stocks of aviation fuel had risen to 153,000 tons of 100-octane and 323,000 tons of other grades (mostly 87-octane).35 The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year.36 The available stock of 100-octane fuel at this point was about 220,000 tons. Actual use of the fuel began after 18 May 1940, when the fighter stations selected for the changeover had completed their deliveries of 100-octane and had consumed their existing stocks of 87-octane. While this was immediately before the intensive air combat associated with the Dunkirk evacuation, where Fighter Command units first directly engaged the Luftwaffe, this can only be regarded as a fortunate coincidence which was contingent upon much earlier decisions to establish, store and distribute sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel.37

and

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". (ref 35) The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. (ref 36)

Note the very different phrasing used in the original paper.

It does not say that "Spitfire and Hurricane units had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

It says: "satisfaction was expressed that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the neccesary 100 octane fuel".

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/18may40-100octane.jpg

I will let the dear readers draw their own conclusions.

[Osprey]

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

Don't even go there Barbi

[Flanker35M]

S!

Zapatista. It is still the man behind the stick pushing the plane to it's limits. Not everyone is capable for any reason(insert here) to fly a plane to the documented numbers no matter how. That is a fact. If you really want a game with plane speeds set in stone then try Aces High. Not a single plane goes a notch faster than documented values, nor climbs or turns better. All is hardcoded. Because AH and CoD are GAMES and there will always be complaint/debate/whinery on them as they are just a representation of something, not the real deal. Not a single game models systems EXACTLY as they work in real life as there are too many variables included. We get an average or estimate only that can be handled by our hardware.

You say 100oct gives 15% more speed. Looking at curves yes it does at 12lbs power setting, but this is not the 100% time setting you use. How much does the speed increase at NORMAL parameters, the real 100% power setting from 87oct for example? Spitfire at 6,25lbs on 100 or 87oct vs Bf109E at WEP or 1.31ata? Should be clear to distinguish emergency/overboost from normal parameters that can be used at all times, not only for a limited time. By all means please make the game historically accurate within it's inevitable constraits of being a game, but do not expect down to last digit accuracy.

If we can get something within let's say 5-15km/h I am more than happy as you can lose the same speed with inproper trim or power/mixture/whatever setting. What is more important that the FM itself is good enough to being able to handle more complex things in a reasonably resource friendly way. I remember Oleg saying at beginning of CoD announcements: You want more fidelity on things. Sure you will get that but do not expect it to be easy on the hardware. Remember that? So I think devs are having a hard time tweaking this game to be both playable and accurate enough. I think you can agree on that. This is not the copy/paste FM original IL-2 had ;)

So let's just hope the patch addresses right things and the rest we can test and report for further tweaking. Until then we should at least try refrain from mud sling contests :) I apologize for jumping the gun.

[Glider]

I will let the dear readers draw their own conclusions.

The interesting thing, is that you have never said what your definition of Units Concerned is.

My belief is that its the fighter units that had not already been converted as we know that a lot had already been converted with use starting in February as supported by the first combat reports and station reports.
We know that Fighter Units in France were using it by May, we know the units in Norway were using it. We know that before May the method of role out changes from using the 87 Octane in the station tanks and replacing it with 100 octane to actively taking it from the stations and replacing it. It also supports the reference to restocking as mentioned in the minutes. That I believe supports the view that Units Concerned where those that hadn't already converted

I know and understand that you disagree with this but you have never said what you believe 'Units Concerned' to be. Is it the 25% of fighter command as per Pips, is it the 16 Squadrons as believed by Pips or is it something else?

Why after May is there no mention of any further role out of 100 Octane at all, anywhere, ever.
If the theory of a reduced number of squadrons is true then when were the rest converted, or were they?

Your evidence depends on a view of one document and twisiting it to your point, not looking at the big picture and the other evidence that supports a view.

[Osprey]

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument.........................I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

[pstyle]

The interesting thing, is that you have never said what your definition of Units Concerned is
We need the notes of meeting six.
The agenda item from meeting 7 is following up an issue identified in meeting six, item two.

[addman]

On a side note, it's funny (and/or sad) how the discussions literally explodes around the topic of Spits/Hurries/109 FM's whilst really crippled planes like he G.50 (which is now closer to historical data) never gets neither flak or praise from the majority of the community members. Just a few of us enthusiasts of the lesser flown plane(s) have spoken up but in a constructive and helpful tone with minimal whining.

Remember, the G.50 is a flying brick , after roughly 3000 meters of altitude that thing sinks like a brick, 3000 meters! After 3000 meters is when the engine should start to perform better not degrade in to a 100 hp cessna engine. Also, getting it up to 350 km/h TAS in level flight is not easy when it should be doing around 400 km/h. Still, I and many others have flown the darned thing with love and without whining and I consider myself biased when it comes to the G.50. After telling the devs many times over it needs fixing and after supplying them with docs it is finally fixed, yaaay, I would still fly it happily even if they didn't fix it and struggle with it. Play with the cards given to you, stop whining.

The way some people behave and whine about the FM's tells me everything about them and why they are so "interested" in getting their favorite aircraft "fixed". I'm 100% for historical accuracy but I think most FM whiners have higher prioritized concerns, competitive edge online.

P.S Imagine if the Hurricane or Spit would degrade in to a barely flying brick after 3000 meters, would it even be possible to predict the magnitude of outcry on the forums then?

[zapatista]

On a side note, it's funny (and/or sad) how the discussions literally explodes around the topic of Spits/Hurries/109 FM's whilst really crippled planes like he G.50 (which is now closer to historical data) never gets neither flak or praise from the majority of the community members.

since when has the G50 been in any way relevant to the outcome to the battle of brittain ?

it isnt and it wasnt

the reason the performance of the 109's, spitfires and hurricanes (and to a lesser extent the 110) is so important is because they were the main fighter aircraft involved, and the outcome of the conflict largely depends on the balance of those aircraft

with the current performance of competing fighter planes being so unrealistic, the outcome would have been rather different :)

[camber]

Hmm, I am worried as the next MP guy about how ATAG will make a MP server post-patch that is balanced enough for both red and blue to want to populate it. When I fly there is rarely more than 10 people on, I tried flying around 20 000 feet on red, I listened to educational podcasts at the same time to compensate for the problem I never saw anyone else up there. Ever.

But just to add to the angst, aren't beta patches optional? Last time you could download the betas and still fly online alongside the unpatched. So a red with the beta will be enjoying the increased FPS but gazing jealously at the unpatched uber-retro-Hurricane dancing above him. Blues will be freaked out wondering what kind of Hurricane just appeared co-alt ;)

Perhaps to get some kind of playable (I know, dirty word for co-opers :)) MP ATAG could go counterfactual. The whole stock of 100 octane was accidently destroyed by Barnes Wallis in a secret failed experiment, which also manages to suck the Castle Brommich shadow Spitfire factory into a singularity (after only 10 Spit IIs were made). Barbarossa starts a lot earlier, there is only one squadron of E4s available (led by Galland) on the Western front. Italy steps up and clouds of improved G50s swarm across the channel to take on the 87 Octane Spit 1s and Hurricanes, while the E4s smoke cigars above and confidently await the limited Spit IIs.

camber

[ATAG_Septic]

Hmm, I am worried as the next MP guy about how ATAG will make a MP server post-patch that is balanced enough for both red and blue to want to populate it. When I fly there is rarely more than 10 people on, I tried flying around 20 000 feet on red, I listened to educational podcasts at the same time to compensate for the problem I never saw anyone else up there ever :)

But just to add to the angst, aren't beta patches optional? Last time you could download the betas and still fly online alongside the unpatched. So a red with the beta will be enjoying the increased FPS but gazing jealously at the unpatched uber-retro-Hurricane dancing above him. Blues will be freaked out wondering what kind of Hurricane just appeared co-alt ;)

Perhaps to get some kind of playable (I know, dirty word for co-opers :)) MP ATAG could go counterfactual. The whole stock of 100 octane was accidently destroyed by Barnes Wallis in a secret failed experiment, which also manages to suck the Castle Brommich shadow Spitfire factory into a singularity (after only 10 Spit IIs were made). Barbarossa starts a lot earlier, there is only one squadron of E4s available (led by Galland) on the Western front. Italy steps up and clouds of improved G50s swarm across the channel to take on the 87 Octane Spit 1s and Hurricanes, while the E4s smoke cigars above and confidently await the limited Spit IIs.

:) camber

Hi Camber,

Welcome to the server! :-)

The server population fluctuates quite dramatically over the twenty-four hours. Subjectively, for me it's better in the early hours as that's when many of the ATAG chaps from across the pond log-on, there's often fifty-plus on at that hour. I often share your experience of lonely flights when there's twenty-odd on and teamspeak is quiet. I could go and find trouble low down but my skill-level demands defensive tactics and a height advantage if I am to survive.

ATAG typically runs the Beta patch as soon as its possible and you will need the same release version to join. It would provide hilarity and angst in equal measures if not. :-)

Your scenario made me smile, as likely a scenario as any that would lead to the feared outcome post the beta patch :-)

I can understand why people, including me, like to play a simulation as close to the generally understood historical facts. Which, as the battle was so closely fought, would perhaps provide the all important gameplay balance (although accurate depiction of the strategy and tactics that produced the outcome is unlikely). You rightly observe it is essential that balance is somehow provided by Cliff of Dover, if it is to succeed as a multiplayer game.

I have to remember its only a Beta patch.

Cheers

[Osprey]

I don't wish to take anything away from ATAG here but it's not the only server, and the missions aren't historically based (unless that has very recently changed). I like ATAG for what it offers when I'm in that type of mood but (no fault of theirs I am sure) it turns into a warpfest when 40-50+ get online - It would be nice if the love was shared about a bit to the other servers, quiet a few of which run historical missions with historical bases and offer something different.

@ATAG, this really is not an insult to your server or the work gone into it, but rather an observation (although OT)

[SEE]

On a positive note, if the patch brings the RAF fighters into their correct relative performance characteristics then that will at least address a major flaw with what we currently have in CloD. What remains after is the relative performance between the axis and allied ac. That will be determined after release.

Whether any glaring issues will be addressed at some point in the future is uncertain but Servers can at least help balance the 'play'. It may well be that the Spit2a, after revisions, is actually closer to the historical FM of the Spit Mk1a and thus server admins may remove any restrictions. Some of the AI Axis Bomber groups can be set to fly at higher altitudes, and escorts will thus be engaging interceptors at altitudes where the FM is 'less questionable'.

I agree with Wolverine, whatever the changes, in terms of MP - both player and server admins will have to adapt to what we are given irrespective of the correct historical facts - that is not their fault but something imposed upon them.

[Ataros]

Some interesting graphs and historical quotes and references were posted here. Please make sure they are available at the bugtracker for easier access.

[41Sqn_Banks]

It may well be that the Spit2a, after revisions, is actually closer to the historical FM of the Spit Mk1a and thus server admins may remove any restrictions.

Indeed. IMHO a 100 octane Spitfire I is not necessarily needed as we have the Spitfire II, which I assume is running at 100 octane and probably has +12 emergency boost* (boost and rpm might be wrong, but it's the performance that matters). So each server can decide to use 87 octane (Spitfire I) or 100 octane (Spitfire II).
Hurricane I has of course a problem ... a Hurricane II (sequel??) would solve it.

*historical cleared or not ... DB601 WEP is not historical as well

Of course all this would be sad from a historical point of view, as 25%-50%-100% (depending on believe) of the Spitfire would have to be Mk. II, which is of course much exaggerated.

[klem]

More correctly: we didn't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m for this test.
I don't know how our FM programmer made this planes for game in 2011.

BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?

[41Sqn_Banks]

BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?

Thank you klem. This is so far the best post in this thread.

[Osprey]

A useful post Banks but again referring to 6.25lbs boost (87 octane) in the rhetoric. As you know, 12lbs was available according to operating limits on the engine, this puts the Spitfire faster on the deck than the 109, not the 50kmph slower we are seeing here. That said, these graphs do plot the 12lbs boost speeds and it is these that require modelling, once cleared by the likes of those who 1C has an ear for.

[Sven]

For comparison, the actual flight test (note the two lines, the bold one is the speed measured with the engine slightly down on power by about 50-60 PS, the thinner line is the measured performance re-calculated for nominal engine output guaranteed by engine manufacturer)

This has been achieved with 1.33/1.35 ata, which is our firewalled throttle setting in the game, without resorting to the 1-min WEP.


Would you say that with the data from that flight test that ~500 kmh could be achieved on the deck for a longer period of time in the BF109E without risking overheating ( which would happen only with emergency power of the 1-min WEP? ). And is there a graph which shows us the maximum speed when the BF109E is using the 1-min WEP?

It seems the devs think that ~500 kmh on the deck ( 0m ) can only be achieved with use of this 1 min WEP, which is not what your German Data speed graph lets us believe, Kurfurst's 1.33/1.35 ATA versus 1C's WEP 1.4 ATA to achieve 500. Quite a difference in terms of aircraft modelling.

One last thing, is this also a 'firewalled throttle without WEP' graph?

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E_Bau_speed.png

About the new Spitfire speed data, I don't want to see the SpitII replacing the Spit I on the servers, this should not be the solution. Dev team should look at 100 Octane SpitI speed figures which confirms that both the BF109E and SpitfireIa, if correctly modeled, are very close in terms of speed.

[Flanker35M]

S!

So the +12lbs boosted performance made Spitfire faster on the deck. What was the speed without the boost then? 5 minutes maximum is not a long time nor is the 1min or so for Bf109E.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Thank you klem. This is so far the best post in this thread.

Banks, could you see PM please? Thx.

[Kwiatek]

S!

So the +12lbs boosted performance made Spitfire faster on the deck. What was the speed without the boost then? 5 minutes maximum is not a long time nor is the 1min or so for Bf109E.

Flanker 1.4 Ata is 1 minut short emergency power and 1.3 Ata for 109 E is also only 5 minut emergency power. Nominal ( continous 30-minut) power is 1.23 Ata for DB601.

For Spitfire MK I maximum speed at nominal power - 6 1/2 lbs is 283-288 mph/455-463 kph ( everything is on charts poseted in these topic)

" The A.&A.E.E. trials of N.3171 resulted in level speeds of 283 mph at sea level and 354 mph at 18,900 feet with the Merlin engine operating at 6.25 lbs/sq.in., 3000 rpm. 1d For comparison, Spitfire Mk. I R.6774 equipped with de Haviland Constant Speed Airscrew and armoured windscreen achieved 288 mph at sea level and 355 mph at 17,800 using 6.25 lbs/sq.in., 3000 rpm. The similarly equipped Spitfire I R.6770, except fitted with 2 cannons and four Browning guns, reached 358 mph at 18,000 ft. The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) obtained 314 mph at sea level and 359 mph at a full throttle height of 11,500 feet using +12 lbs/sq.in. boost"

[Flanker35M]

S!

Got it Kwiatek :) So looks like these planes were quite close match even with +12lbs enabled for the Spits and Hurricanes.

[pstyle]

S!
So the +12lbs boosted performance made Spitfire faster on the deck. .

Yeah, and up to around 12 or 15,0000ft. And yes, only for a limited time.. enough time.

[Insuber]

BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?

Yeah I did it by hand yesterday on top of the Kwiatek charts of the Hurricane, and wrote here the same ... Hurricane is penalized below 3000 m ... again, provided that the historical test data is reliable.

Cheers,
Ins

[Buchon]

This whole thing of Reds and Blues and the sides are getting my nerves :evil:

I´m a happy camper single-player of awesome historical custom missions made by the community mostly.

I don't care about Reds and Blues as I don't play online but I care about historical accuracy.

The B6 Spitfire graph (for example) is showing a really accurate performance line (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=414415&postcount=93), Knowing a few things as the problems of the FM at high altitudes, the boost is not modeled well into the game (but will be later), and that it´s 87 octanes (obviously).

That´s pretty good results.

In fact is the most accurate performance line in-game now, because there planes with real problems there, the 109 performance line is a roller coaster compared to this for example.

But you guys are arguing and twisting this over for Red or blue sake ? really ?

Also ... conspiracy theory ? really ??!!

Get a grip for everyone's sake pls.


This is a really good post, providing performance data for historical sake, watch and learn :

BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Yeah I did it by hand yesterday on top of the Kwiatek charts of the Hurricane, and wrote here the same ... Hurricane is penalized below 3000 m ... again, provided that the historical test data is reliable.

Cheers,
Ins

This seems to be a common characteristic of the upcoming FM: Speeds at low altitudes are lower than the reference values.
The Bf 109 can compensate it by unhistorical WEP. Let's hope they will look at the Bf 109 FM for the final patch, the drop above FTH is significant. Looking at the graphs of G.50 and Blenheim it seems to be possible to limit take-off boost to certain altitudes, why isn't that done for the Bf 109?

[Kwiatek]

BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?


Looks very bad for low altitude even only for 6 1/2 lbs performacne :(

Not mention of absense 100 Octan fuel performacne :(

So thats why we didn't get full altitude speed polars of British fighters on graph?

Comone 1C i belive you could do it much closier to RL data the same you could make +12 lbs boost implement for British fighters!

Idea with blocked/unblocked Boost Cut-Out depend of using type of fuel octan is really not bad. Try it before patch relase plz !!!

[Osprey]

This whole thing of Reds and Blues and the sides are getting my nerves :evil:

I´m a happy camper single-player of awesome historical custom missions made by the community mostly.

I don't care about Reds and Blues as I don't play online but I care about historical accuracy.

The B6 Spitfire graph (for example) is showing a really accurate performance line (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=414415&postcount=93), Knowing a few things as the problems of the FM at high altitudes, the boost is not modeled well into the game (but will be later), and that it´s 87 octanes (obviously).

That´s pretty good results.

In fact is the most accurate performance line in-game now, because there planes with real problems there, the 109 performance line is a roller coaster compared to this for example.

But you guys are arguing and twisting this over for Red or blue sake ? really ?

Also ... conspiracy theory ? really ??!!

This is a really good post, providing performance data for historical sake, watch and learn :



Get a grip for everyone's sake pls.


This IS about being accurate. You can't say you want it accurate and then on the other hand imply that klem is being pedantic. 28mph is a lot of speed.

[Buchon]

You can't say you want it accurate and then on the other hand imply that klem is being pedantic. 28mph is a lot of speed.

I did not, maybe you need read my post again.


Edit:

I did a edit for better compression.

[Kurfürst]

Would you say that with the data from that flight test that ~500 kmh could be achieved on the deck for a longer period of time in the BF109E without risking overheating ( which would happen only with emergency power of the 1-min WEP? ).

This trial: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/Geschw_109V15a.html

certainly suggest that it is so. They were running the plane at 1,31-1,33ata, and radiators were only 1/4 open (streamline position), yet coolant temperature could be maintained at constant 90 degrees Celsius, an optimum for the engine., so in practice it means that the aircraft should not overheat with the coolant in level flight and max power. (though it may reach somewhat higher temps in climbs).

The oil cooler was also closed (in practice its slightly open as it physically cannot close completely IIRC), yet oil temp remained at 62/82 Celsius. Its maintainable indefinietely for the 601A.

Of course the outside temperature during the test was somewhat low, at 5 Celius, so at higher temps we get somewhat higher temps, but not by much, and probably well within limit. The DB 601A could maintain a bit over 100 degrees Celsius coolant temperature indefinietely.

And is there a graph which shows us the maximum speed when the BF109E is using the 1-min WEP?

I have not seen one yet. But the performance is easily estimated with reasonable accuracy, as power requirements increase with the cube (ie. for 10% higher speed you need 33% more power). We know what the 109E did on the 5-min 1.35ata (497 km/h) and how much power 1.35 ata meant (1045 PS).

From that the 1-min 1.45ata (which gave 1175 PS, +12.44% power) is easy to calculate, that at +12.44% power the plane will be around 3.98% faster.

That's around 517 km/h at SL, on the 1-min WEP.

It seems the devs think that ~500 kmh on the deck ( 0m ) can only be achieved with use of this 1 min WEP, which is not what your German Data speed graph lets us believe, Kurfurst's 1.33/1.35 ATA versus 1C's WEP 1.4 ATA to achieve 500. Quite a difference in terms of aircraft modelling.

Yes, the 109E even with the patch will be still a little bit slow, but I think its much better than previously, when it was 40 km/h slower than it should be... I hope the devs will eventually find some time to polish it further. OTOH the serial produced planes had a certain tolerance.

One last thing, is this also a 'firewalled throttle without WEP' graph?

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E_Bau_speed.png

The 109E type specification sheet (http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html) where is taken from does not say the power rating. However given the the results of the first test posted, which gave 497 km/h at 1.35ata, and this list 500 km/h, its 95% certain that this page is for the 5-min rating (1.35ata), and not including the boosted 1-min rating. Unless one wants to believe that +135 PS gave a speed boost of 3 km/h...

In short to make 'perfect' 109E model, it should make ~500 on the deck with 1.35, and ~515 with the 1-min WEP.

Coolant temperature should stay around 90 (indefinitely maintainable, ie. no overheat) at high speed flight with the radiator flaps 1/4 open, and oil temperature should stay around 60-80 Celsius with the oil cooler fully closed.

In addition, the radiator drag should be correctly modelled (I believe it does not given much if any drag on all planes in the current model). In reality fully opening it slowed down the plane by about 50 km/h - of course given the above, its a rather theoretical consideration, given that could perfectly maintain the aircraft cool in flight. The same was not the case on the ground however!

About the new Spitfire speed data, I don't want to see the SpitII replacing the Spit I on the servers, this should not be the solution. Dev team should look at 100 Octane SpitI speed figures which confirms that both the BF109E and SpitfireIa, if correctly modeled, are very close in terms of speed.

I absolutely agree, we need a +12 lbs version of the Spit I next to the existing 87 octane version. The Spit II I am afraid is correct, the type was limited to +9 lbs during the BoB, even with 100 octane, which meant 460-470ish top speed at SL, and was considerably slower than the +12 Spit I version or the 109E.

The Bf 109 can compensate it by unhistorical WEP.

What is so 'unhistorical' about it?

[Buchon]

28mph is a lot of speed.

28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

If you make a base performance line with the performance of Boost line then you will have a aircraft with the Boost on all the time, and that´s obviously unrealistic.

You should make the base line performance and then model a Boost behavior that provides the performance of Boost performance line.

And that mean model a high altitude, overheating and damage behavior for Boost too, that´s not easy but they are on it.

I´m full for historic accuracy and for the correct Boost implementation, of course.

[Osprey]

I love how Kurfurst posts data with 'calculated' and 'estimate' figures but no actual flight tests. This would be fair enough but for the fact that it's the opposite stance he takes when dealing with RAF data.

Just thought I'd throw that out there before people start to actually believe this guy, just in case you aren't aware of his reputation.


28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

If you make a base performance line with the performance of Boost line then you will have a aircraft with the Boost on all the time, and that´s obviously unrealistic.

You should make the base line performance and then model a Boost behavior that provides the performance of Boost performance line.

And that mean model a high altitude, overheating and damage behavior for Boost too, that´s not easy but they are on it.

I´m full for historic accuracy and for the correct Boost implementation, of course.

At present the 12lbs boost is simply not modeled, so even applying it is not possible. Nobody here is suggesting that 12lbs needs to be available for unlimited times, but for the historically accurate times. Please see bug 174 in my sig......and vote for it :)

[fruitbat]

28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.



That base performing line B6 posted is 28mph slower at sea level than it should be for a spit running on 87 octane fuel at max power ie 6 1/4 Lbs, there is no 'boost' to add to it with that fuel, let alone the extra 25 mph at sea level that running 100 octane fuel and 12Lbs boost would get you.

[fruitbat]

. The Spit II I am afraid is correct, the type was limited to +9 lbs during the BoB, even with 100 octane

I am genuinely intrigued by this, and not messing around, on what is that based?

I've seen this obviously, dated july 1940

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit2pnfs3.jpg

and as Crump has pointed out in the other thread that all Spit MkII's were using 100 octane fuel in June 1940.

So what have you got that proves they were only on 9Lbs boost during BoB?

[Kwiatek]

I love how Kurfurst posts data with 'calculated' and 'estimate' figures but no actual flight tests. This would be fair enough but for the fact that it's the opposite stance he takes when dealing with RAF data.

Just thought I'd throw that out there before people start to actually believe this guy, just in case you aren't aware of his reputation.




Most know German data for test of serial production 109 E-1/E-3 claimed for 1.3 Ata (5-minutes emergency power) with 1/4 radiator open: 467-475 km/h.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e3-1792.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me-109E1-1791.jpg

And serial Swiss 109 E-3 corensponded very well with German charts above:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me-109E-Swiss.jpg

Hmm even with US test ( 290 mph at the deck)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me-109E3-US.jpg


So for serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.3 Ata (5 minut emergency power) should be between 467-475 km/h

So i think 500 km/h would be really absolutly limit for serial 109 E version - if so it could be do at 1.45 Ata (1-minut emergency power) and radiator close for very short time ( below 1 minut).

Actually we will have it in incoming beta patch.

But looking at British fighters speed polars in beta patch there is not acurrate speed drop at lower alts even for 6 1/2 lbs power settings. Not mention there is lack of +12 lbs emergency boost which was significant adventage in low alts fights.

I read 303 Sqn pilots combat raports from Battle of Britain day's when they wrote about using +12 lbs boost in their Hurricanes MK1. It really make a difference at low alts fights.

[Kurfürst]

Life must have treated you so unfairly, Osprey.

[Kurfürst]

Most know German data for test of serial production 109 E-1/E-3 claimed for 1.3 Ata (5-minutes emergency power) with 1/4 radiator open: 467-475 km/h.

Unfortunately, no. The papers you have posted clearly state that the results were not adjusted to the nominal engine outputs. They are not performance test but comparison flights with various installations (guns present/not present, slats sealed/unsealed).

And in all likelyhood, they are all done using the high altitude blower (FS gear in English terms) for the trial.

The flight test results. I see a trend here. The three test you have posted we know that they were done at a lower boost setting, with the results not having been corrected to guaranteed engine outputs, and we do not know if, during the tests, they used MS or FS gear.

We do know however that they all match the results obtained in the most detailed test, that was corrected for guaranteed output, and when during the trials the the supercharger in FS gear.

WNr. 1774
485 km/h at 1.31 ata at MS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
497 km/h at 1.35 ata at MS gear (corrected for guaranteed engine output)
460 km/h at 1.31 ata at FS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
470 km/h at 1.35 ata at FS gear(corrected for guaranteed engine output)


WNr. 1792
464 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

WNr. 1791
474 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

In short, it just the usual Mike Williams BS.

J-347
464 km at 1.35? (detail not given) ata at ? gear

Hmm even with US test ( 290 mph at the deck)

Can we see the testing details of the airframes? What Werknummer, airframe condition, what boost was used, were the radiator flaps open or closed etc...?

All I can see is that they did no actual testing below 10 000 feet / 3000 m.


So for serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.3 Ata (5 minut emergency power) should be between 467-475 km/h

Yes. When operating the high altitude blower (FS gear) near SL, which occured in some tests, but never in real operations.

Serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.35 Ata was 500 km/h. Don't argue with me, argue with Willy Messerschmitt who sold these planes and guaranteed in the contract that each and every one of them will do within 5% tolerance of 500 km/h.

So i think 500 km/h would be really absolutly limit for serial 109 E version - if so it could be do at 1.45 Ata (1-minut emergency power) and radiator close for very short time ( below 1 minut).

No, 500 km/h is the official specification for the serial produced Bf 109E.

My source, which I already posted, says the 109E could do 497 km/h at 1.35ata, with 1/4 open radiators, without overheating.

I'd like to see your source which contradicts that.

[Osprey]

I doubted your data based on biased approach between allied and axis over many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

From what I can see is that you have a projected graph that you made yourself from your own calculations vs multiple graphs which come from actual air tests from both allied and axis during the time. But it doesn't fit with your dreams so you shoot the messenger. We've been here before haven't we.......

[Kurfürst]

Well and I only doubt your mental and psychological well-being since I have observed a fracture between reality and your posts, and also a well-developed paranoia and tendency to believe/make up conspiracy theories in many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

So there's really no reason to complain. You express your opinion, I express mine in return. Isn't that how friendships are born?

From what I can see is that you have a projected graph that you made yourself from your own calculations vs multiple graphs which come from actual air tests from both allied and axis during the time.

Oh, really, is that so. Would you kindly point me to this 'projected graph I made myself', please?

[Kwiatek]

The papers you have posted clearly state that the results were not adjusted to the nominal engine outputs. They are not performance test but comparison flights with various installations (guns present/not present, slats sealed/unsealed).

Where you find it that there is lower engine outputs???

In these documents - German documents there is clearly 1.3 Ata and 1/4 radiator open. And these is serial production planes.




And in all likelyhood, they are all done using the high altitude blower (FS gear in English terms) for the trial.


The flight test results. I see a trend here. The three test you have posted we know that they were done at a lower boost setting, with the results not having been corrected to guaranteed engine outputs, and we do not know if, during the tests, they used MS or FS gear.

From where you get these about MS or FS gear??? 109 E had hydraulic supercharger which surly was not used in V15 prototype nothing more.




Serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.35 Ata was 500 km/h. Don't argue with me, argue with Willy Messerschmitt who sold these planes and guaranteed in the contract that each and every one of them will do within 5% tolerance of 500 km/h.



No, 500 km/h is the official specification for the serial produced Bf 109E.

I would really like to see your speed charts for SERIAL 109 E which confirm these beacuse until now i didnt saw any. But for contatry i saw many which show 467-475 km/h not more.


My source, which I already posted, says the 109E could do 497 km/h at 1.35ata, with 1/4 open radiators, without overheating.

For prototype 109 V15 yes with no hydraulic supercharger. But next serial production 109 E tests speed didnt copy these.

Moreover other county (Swiss, French, US) speed test for serial 109 E confirmed German test for serial planes.


I'd like to see your source which contradicts that.

You alreay saw it page before. German documents from test speed for SERIAL planes not from one prototype and german prospect.

[Osprey]

Yeah. As on the other threads you just turn to insulting anybody who doesn't agree with you 100%. It's all a bit mental really.

Kwaitek, save your breath in trying to convince him, he lives in this fantasy world where the 109 ruled the skies, he makes up anything he can to make the 109 out for better than it actually was. You are dealing with a guy permanently banned from 2 other forums and Wikipedia, he's not going to change his mind. The important thing is that everyone is aware of him so he doesn't get the space to destroy historic truth - work on that instead. It is that last part is why I am sticking my neck out on these forums, that everyone can see, because you just need to stay silent for him to triumph.

[Kurfürst]

Where you find it that there is lower engine outputs???

It says there, right in the documents you have posted. Please translate, for all.


In these documents - German documents there is clearly 1.3 Ata and 1/4 radiator open. And these is serial production planes.

Actually, none of them are serial production planes. The two planes you have posted are pre-production planes for a batch of 14. And they are exactly identical to WNr. 1774.

From where you get these about MS or FS gear???

It says right there, Bodenlader, Hohenlader. MS gear, FS gear.

109 E had hydraulic supercharger which surly was not used in V15 prototype nothing more.

Source please.

BTW some G-6s tested at Rechlin show the same pattern. The 109s hydraulic supercharger could operate in MS or FS gear, if it is set so.

I would really like to see your speed charts for SERIAL 109 E which confirm these beacuse until now i didnt saw any.

Here, again:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/files/109v15a_blatt6.jpg

And this is the official specification for 109E, guaranteed within +/- 5% by the manufacturer.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E_Bau_speed.png

But for contatry i saw many which show 467-475 km/h not more.

We have already discussed this. The tests you have posted are probably done in FS gear, which yields less performance than MS gear near SL.

For prototype 109 V15 yes with no hydraulic supercharger.

Source for no hydraulic supercharger please.

But next serial production 109 E tests speed didnt copy these.

Especially as there was never any DB 601 w/o a hydraulic supercharger..

Moreover other county (Swiss, French, US) speed test for serial 109 E confirmed German test for serial planes.

We have discussed this. The Swiss trials, though no details are available, are comparing various propeller designs, and are again likely at FS gear.

The French tests actually closely agree with the nominal specs, the French themselves state it so.

The US test, of which's conditions we know absolutely nothing, did not test SL speed at all - they did not measure speed below 12 000 feet - there's no data point there marked... it's just a rough extrapolation. Oh, and just for the record, the US tests also seem to have measured both FS gear and MS gear. They measured ca. 335 mph at 12 000 feet (540 kph at 3657 m), that's pretty much the same the Germans measured in FS gear on WNr 1174 / V15a.

I am curious why you did not post the testing details though. Testing details are very important, an open radiator can chop off 50 km/h from top speed, for example.

You alreay saw it page before. German documents from test speed for SERIAL planes not from one prototype and german prospect.

Oh. You mean the papers which are not corrected for guaranteed engine outputs, are likely done at the less optimal FS instead of MS gear, and were never meant to measure the absolute performance of serial produced aircraft but relative speed difference of various installations, and was not done on serial production aircraft if that's so important for you.

[Kurfürst]

It is that last part is why I am sticking my neck out on these forums, that everyone can see, because you just need to stay silent for him to triumph.

... and I mistook you for a nutjob for a minute. My mistake! :D

[Buchon]

That base performing line B6 posted is 28mph slower at sea level than it should be for a spit running on 87 octane fuel at max power ie 6 1/4 Lbs, there is no 'boost' to add to it with that fuel, let alone the extra 25 mph at sea level that running 100 octane fuel and 12Lbs boost would get you.

As I said you are comparing a base performance line and Boosted performance line,which is wrong.

Here a really good graph posted by Kwiatek where we can see a base performance line and Boost performance lines, pls watch it :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

The red line is base performance line, without Boost, I know that is max weak mix and calculated but its a good reference, the real speed should be a slight better then.

So we have a 246mph of sea level without Boost and 283mph with Boost.

Now we can extrapolate that data to the graph made by Klem which contain the B6 data :

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9817/spitfirerlcodperformanc.jpg

Obviously he is comparing base performance line with Boost line but that don't mean that its not a interesting graph because we have here the sea level speed of the base performance line posted by B6.

As you can see the B6 graph data shows a sea level speed of 255mph without Boost, considering that the 246mph mark of Kwiatek graph is weak mix calculated I can say that it´s pretty accurate.

So, what is wrong with the B6 graph ?

I can say nothing but we need the freaking Boost modeled :!:

[Kwiatek]

It says there, right in the documents you have posted. Please translate, for all.

I translated there is not information about confirmed lower power output but only about correct mainfold pressure, temperature and not guarantee engine power - nothing more. No info about lower power output.




It says right there, Bodenlader, Hohenlader. MS gear, FS gear.

Exacly that why it looks that V15 prototype didnt used variable hydraulic supercharget but only 2 position one. With variable supercharger speed polars will be much more smooth.




Source please.



Please - Your own site:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/Geschw_109V15a.html

" It appears that variable-speed hydraulic supercharger control was either not present or not engaged in the tests (ie. testing seperately with both supercharger gears) : low-altitude and high-altitude supercharger speeds were engaged at a given boost pressure, therefore the curves do not show the characteristic shape of the DB power curve - this would result in a more smooth,curved transition and improved in performance between the supercharger`s two critical altitudes (ca between 2200 and 4800m) in level flight."



Here, again:



Again for prototype V15 and German prospect not FOR SERIAL PRODUCTION plane. Nothing knew. I would like to see such speeds for serial planes.




We have already discussed this. The tests you have posted are probably done in FS gear, which yields less performance than MS gear near SL.



Suorce? I dont see any information about these.

As we know serial production 109 E had variable hydraulic supercharger so how and for what would like to disable MS gear????

Maby Germans, Frenchs, Swiss and Americans made phone call and decided to blocked MS gear in their 109 for test?



We have discussed this. The Swiss trials, though no details are available, are comparing various propeller designs, and are again likely at FS gear.



Again totally bulshit for me and not confirmed anywhere.

[Kwiatek]

So, what is wrong with the B6 graph ?

I can say nothing but we need the freaking Boost modeled :!:

Beacuse it show maximum speed for Spitfire MK1 which mean for 87 octan - +6 1/2 mainfold pressure (boost) - so not red but blue line from RAE charts.

Red line is for maxium continous weak mixture power which mean +2 1/2 mainfold pressure ( boost) for economical flying.

[macro]

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

lmfao

i was gonna write that

is there a performance chart like the ones BS posted for the IIa?

all this arguments and the spit IIa may become the "default" red fighter for a more even fight on most servers?

[bongodriver]

until they pork that one too.

[Kurfürst]

I translated there is not information about confirmed lower power output but only about correct mainfold pressure, temperature and not guarantee engine power - nothing more. No info about lower power output.

Ok, so we have established that your tests were not corrected for nominal engine outputs, and therefore, irrevelant as we do not know what powers were developed during the tests.

Hint: We know exactly in the case



Exacly that why it looks that V15 prototype didnt used variable hydraulic supercharget but only 2 position one. With variable supercharger speed polars will be much more smooth.

Problem is, you do not seem to understand how the hydraulic coupling the DB 601 works. It has two oil pumps, one constant supply (fixed speed, MS, thats the first "straight" line up to around 2000 m in the power curves), one variable supply to set the amount of slip (speed of supercharger) via oil pressure. You can set the second one for full oil delivery, and voila, it operates exactly like a fixed speed supercharger with two fixed ratio gears.

Please - Your own site:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/Geschw_109V15a.html

" It appears that variable-speed hydraulic supercharger control was either not present or not engaged in the tests (ie. testing seperately with both supercharger gears) : low-altitude and high-altitude supercharger speeds were engaged at a given boost pressure, therefore the curves do not show the characteristic shape of the DB power curve - this would result in a more smooth,curved transition and improved in performance between the supercharger`s two critical altitudes (ca between 2200 and 4800m) in level flight."

Well you just have to read it now I think... I have bolded it out for ya.


Again for prototype V15 and German prospect not FOR SERIAL PRODUCTION plane. Nothing knew. I would like to see such speeds for serial planes.

Again I suggest you read the conditions of the airfame for the V15. Its the same as the serial production airplane.

As for the speeds for serial production planes, it can be read here. 500 km/h at SL.
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html

Suorce? I dont see any information about these.

As we know serial production 109 E had variable hydraulic supercharger so how and for what would like to disable MS gear????

I do not know. "Disabling" the MS gear is easy - you just have to set the barometric control so that the second oil pump in the hydraulic coupling operates at maximum delivery, and voila, the hydralic coupling operates now at minimum slip and maximum supercharger speed.

As noted, G-6 tested at Rechlin shows the same. I suppose more accurate figures can be collected.

Maby Germans, Frenchs, Swiss and Americans made phone call and decided to blocked MS gear in their 109 for test?

The French definietely did not, but they got similar results to the V15 trials.

The rest is plainly in the files. Both V15 trial and the US trial show that they tested both in MS and FS gear. The Swiss is a bit of a guesswork, but then explain me:

a) Why did the Swiss get a straight curve instead of a curved one, ie. a characteristic feature of the DB's barometric control, *when engaged*
b) Why did the Swiss get a result exactly like the Germans in V15 trials while using the Hohenlader (FS gear).

Again totally bulshit for me and not confirmed anywhere.

Well again the Swiss tests show exactly the same results as WNr 1774 tests in MS gear. Mere coincidence? I don't think so. No less than 35-40 km/h difference between planes? I do not think so either.

Please translate the text below, then explain how it is different from the "serial production" E-1. Especially the Motorhaube noch roh, Rückstoßer oben unverkleidet part.

An Bf 109 V 15 a, der Mustermachine für die E-1-Serie, wurden die Geschwindigkeitsleistungen erflogen. Aus Zeitmengel konnten nicht die günstigen Rückstoßer
und Ansaughutzen erflogen werden, sodaß evtl. noch Leistungssteigerungen möglich sind.

Zustand des Flugwerkes. Oberfläche : serienmäßiger Anstrich, Motorhaube noch roh, Rückstoßer oben unverkleidet. 2 Flügel- und 2 Hauben-MG eingebaut. Eindrahtantenne. Fahrwehr eingezogen, Sporn außen.

[41Sqn_Banks]

What is so 'unhistorical' about it?

According to the graph WEP is available in the game up to FTH, which is not correct. It was only authorized for take-off and up to 1-1.5km. So it's like the other take-off boosts which is shows in G50 or Blenheim graph, they should all only be available at low altitudes.
IIRC the DB601 manual also authorized the use only for overload conditions and short runways, not for regular take-off.

[fruitbat]

@Buchon,

Beacuse it show maximum speed for Spitfire MK1 which mean for 87 octan - +6 1/2 mainfold pressure (boost) - so not red but blue line from RAE charts.

Red line is for maxium continous weak mixture power which mean +2 1/2 mainfold pressure ( boost) for economical flying.

^this.

[fruitbat]

@Kurfurst, still waiting for your proof that all MKII's were limited to 9lbs from my post earlier,

. The Spit II I am afraid is correct, the type was limited to +9 lbs during the BoB, even with 100 octane

I am genuinely intrigued by this, and not messing around, on what is that based?

I've seen this obviously, dated july 1940

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit2pnfs3.jpg

and as Crump has pointed out in the other thread that all Spit MkII's were using 100 octane fuel in June 1940.

So what have you got that proves they were only on 9Lbs boost during BoB?

[klem]

As I said you are comparing a base performance line and Boosted performance line,which is wrong.

Here a really good graph posted by Kwiatek where we can see a base performance line and Boost performance lines, pls watch it :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

The red line is base performance line, without Boost, I know that is max weak mix and calculated but its a good reference, the real speed should be a slight better then.

So we have a 246mph of sea level without Boost and 283mph with Boost.

Now we can extrapolate that data to the graph made by Klem which contain the B6 data :

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9817/spitfirerlcodperformanc.jpg

Obviously he is comparing base performance line with Boost line but that don't mean that its not a interesting graph because we have here the sea level speed of the base performance line posted by B6.

As you can see the B6 graph data shows a sea level speed of 255mph without Boost, considering that the 246mph mark of Kwiatek graph is weak mix calculated I can say that it´s pretty accurate.

So, what is wrong with the B6 graph ?

I can say nothing but we need the freaking Boost modeled :!:

I'm not sure who is misunderstanding who but all the curves on the chart I posted, excluding the curve I overlaid from B6's data, are original data from tests made at the time and the first line (lowest speeds in pale blue) are for the boost at +6 1/4lbs Merlin III with 87 octane and a three bladed constant speed propeller. The higher boost curve at +12lbs with 100 octane is the next one listed and in a deeper blue.

My curve takes B6s data (orange line, which only went down to 3000m), projected down to 0 feet (yellow line). The projection may turn out to be not strictly accurate but is a fair basis for the question.

If you look at Kwiatek's chart you will see along the line that starts at 283mph @ 0 feet the words +6 1/4 lbs boost, i.e. the max with 87 octane. The red line is when running 'Max Weak mix' which would of course yield less power and the boost pressure is not given but the pilots notes state that at the weakest setting the max permitted are +2 1/4lbs boost and 2.600 rpm. These are probably the settings reptresented by the red line.

[Kurfürst]

According to the graph WEP is available in the game up to FTH, which is not correct. It was only authorized for take-off and up to 1-1.5km. So it's like the other take-off boosts which is shows in G50 or Blenheim graph, they should all only be available at low altitudes.

I know an easy fix for that, since the graph WEP shows performance which was achiveable without WEP in real life, simply rewrite the WEP line to Nominal in the FM.

Then add a new WEP line in the FM which is only useable for 1 min / ca 1.5 km and boost performance even further.

Things would be perffect then, and very historical. :D ;)

IIRC the DB601 manual also authorized the use only for overload conditions and short runways, not for regular take-off.

I don't remember seeing such restriction. It would be strange in the DB manual anyways.

[Buchon]

Beacuse it show maximum speed for Spitfire MK1 which mean for 87 octan - +6 1/2 mainfold pressure (boost) - so not red but blue line from RAE charts.

Red line is for maxium continous weak mixture power which mean +2 1/2 mainfold pressure ( boost) for economical flying.

http://i45.tinypic.com/35be654.png

I have to say this again?

There no Boost performance modeled in the game, that´s why its in the Bugtraker, they are working to implement this.

The graph that B6 posted contain no Boost :

http://i47.tinypic.com/2lsw2ux.jpg

That´s why the Patch line is below of the Flight Tests from 3000 to 6000, once the boost is implemented it will raise.

We need the freaking Boost implemented correctly :!:

[Kurfürst]

@Kurfurst, still waiting for your proof that all MKII's were limited to 9lbs from my post earlier,

I am genuinely intrigued by this, and not messing around, on what is that based?

I have posted this paper (and of course I got it from someone else). But others (I think 41 Banks) have pointed out that this page was amended, given the amendment no, likely in 1941 IIRC. So in short the +12 limit only appears in later manuals, but the 1940 ones.

The unamended (likely first or early) version from July 1940 shows the limit as +9 for 5 min Combat (+12 is enabled, but only for take off for a limited time/altitude).

[Insuber]

It is interesting to see the wide tolerance of the contractual performance of the Bf-109. The error of +/-5% on the top speed of 500 km/h translates into 10% or 50 km/h of allowed error in absolute figures. Add to that the wear of operations and you can easily have poor performers.
It would be equally interesting to know the tolerance of the British types, I would not be surprised to see higher tolerance values for the Spitfire, given the poor status of the Supermarine rigs and tools at the beginning of production (see the Leo McKinstry book on the Spitfire to have an idea about the mess of the Supermarine works in 1938-39).

PS: how nice if this variability is modeled ... it shouldn't be that difficult ...

[camber]

:!:

There no Boost performance modeled in the game, that´s why its in the Bugtraker, they are working to implement this.

The graph that B6 posted contain no Boost :

That´s why the Patch line is below of the Flight Tests from 3000 to 6000, once the boost is implemented it will raise.

We need the freaking Boost implemented correctly :!:

Hi Buchon,

I agree with you but with some terminology issues. The Brits are not using the term boost as something that is turned on and off. "Boost" is just manifold pressure with atmospheric pressure subtracted, so + 6 1/4 psi boost is 21 1/4 psi manifold pressure. I assume boost was used as a term as the supercharger is boosting manifold pressure above atmospheric. Maximum manifold pressure is set by the boost controller with a cutout that can be modified to give a higher manifold pressure (+12psi) on command.

So even with the economic weak mixture setting, there is still "boost" (+2 1/4 psi). The problem is as you say, that the boost setup is wrong. From the plots to me (thanks Klem et al.) it appears that post patch the boost will read +6 1/4 psi, but give performance approximately as for +2 1/4 psi with weak mixture.

camber

[Buchon]

Hi Buchon,

I agree with you but with some terminology issues. The Brits are not using the term boost as something that is turned on and off. "Boost" is just manifold pressure with atmospheric pressure subtracted, so + 6 1/4 psi boost is 21 1/4 psi manifold pressure. I assume boost was used as a term as the supercharger is boosting manifold pressure above atmospheric. Maximum manifold pressure is set by the boost controller with a cutout that can be modified to give a higher manifold pressure (+12psi) on command.

So even with the economic weak mixture setting, there is still "boost" (+2 1/4 psi). The problem is as you say, that the boost setup is wrong. From the plots to me (thanks Klem et al.) it appears that post patch the boost will read +6 1/4 psi, but give performance approximately as for +2 1/4 psi with weak mixture.

camber

Ohh, I see thanks :)

[41Sqn_Banks]

http://i45.tinypic.com/35be654.png

I have to say this again?

There no Boost performance modeled in the game, that´s why its in the Bugtraker, they are working to implement this.

The graph that B6 posted contain no Boost :

http://i47.tinypic.com/2lsw2ux.jpg

That´s why the Patch line is below of the Flight Tests from 3000 to 6000, once the boost is implemented it will raise.

We need the freaking Boost implemented correctly :!:

The Merlin III is a supercharged engine. So it always has "boost" by definition. What is not modelled is the "boost control cut-out" which enables to obtain more boost than regular. Regular boost is +6.25

Boost with "boost control cut-out" enabled is +12

[Insuber]

Look at the Spitfire II (a and b) Pilot Notes, page 13 (unbiased, first hand info):

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/Spit2Manual.pdf

100 octanes appear as a standard, 87 as the exception, 12 lbs boost allowed up to 5 minutes, but effective only up to 10'500 ft. At least for the Spitfire IIa and IIb. The source doesn't indicate the revision date though.

I didn't find the Spifire I Pilot Notes, unfortunately. I'll check my CoD collector's edition ... :-)

[fruitbat]

Yeah i think Buchon was just having terminology/language misunderstanding.

[Buchon]

Yeah, I mean there no boost control modeled, or at least properly, in-game now.

I think that they are working on it, if they made that performance line below of the Flight Test I think is because the properly Boost Control is coming.

[klem]

Yeah, I mean there no boost control modeled, or at least properly, in-game now.

I think that they are working on it, if they made that performance line below of the Flight Test I think is because the properly Boost Control is coming.

They made that line I added from B6's data by incorrectly amending the Spitfire FM. They need to make the Patch boost line align with the 6 1/4 lbs (thin pale blue) line. Then it will be modelled correctly for 87 Octane, +6 1/4lbs, 3 blade constant speed propeller, i.e. the Spitfire MkI we have now.

Its the +12lbs line achieved using 100 octane and boost cutout override that we hope they are working on because without it we don't have the BoB. We have "thank god they didn't come in November 1939".

[Buchon]

Well, this is how I see the problem (in Brits terminology)

The main problem is that the game´s FM haven´t Boost pressure changes modeled in yet.

So if you made your plane performance line over the blue line to obtain the Boost +6 1/4lbs performance (as is in pre-patch) then you will be over it always, even if cut the throttle and the needle is showing +2 1/4 psi.

The correct way is at the inverse, you should make the economic performance curve (+2 1/4 psi) and then add Boost pressure changes to the FM.

Then you have both performance lines, economic +2 1/4 psi and +6 1/4 psi.

If you watch carefully the B6 graph you´ll discover that it´s a economic performance curve (+2 1/4 psi), so my guess is that they are planing to add Boost pressure changes to the FM.

[fruitbat]

Well, this is how I see the problem (in Brits terminology)

The main problem is that the game´s FM haven´t Boost pressure changes modeled in yet.

So if you made your plane performance line over the blue line to obtain the Boost +6 1/4lbs performance (as is in pre-patch) then you will be over it always, even if cut the throttle and the needle is showing +2 1/4 psi.

The correct way is at inverse, you should make the economic performance curve (+2 1/4 psi) and then add Boost pressure changes to the FM.

Then you have both performance lines, economic +2 1/4 psi and +6 1/4 psi.

Unfortunately not, think what in Brit terminology is boost = ata.

the line B6 showed us is full speed as it is with ALL the other graphs, in a spit 1 with 87 octane fuel which happens to be 6 1/4 boost, and thats that, there is no 'Boost button', no gate to push through, full speed is just the throttle pushed all the way forward. There is nothing to be added to it at a later date.

when we are talking about boost, in this sense we do not mean what the old il2 used to call WEP.

[Buchon]

I know that there no Boost button but under a FM coding point of view the boost behavior is equal to WEP.

That´s because you should make overheating and damage for it so the best way is implement it in the code as is done with WEP.

[ramstein]

It is interesting to see the wide tolerance of the contractual performance of the Bf-109. The error of +/-5% on the top speed of 500 km/h translates into 10% or 50 km/h of allowed error in absolute figures. Add to that the wear of operations and you can easily have poor performers.
It would be equally interesting to know the tolerance of the British types, I would not be surprised to see higher tolerance values for the Spitfire, given the poor status of the Supermarine rigs and tools at the beginning of production (see the Leo McKinstry book on the Spitfire to have an idea about the mess of the Supermarine works in 1938-39).

PS: how nice if this variability is modeled ... it shouldn't be that difficult ...

speaking tolerances..., in piston engines, I learned while attending a college in auto mechanics.. and engine rebuilding, that the tolerance for engine pistons in cylinders was purposely set a bit loose like .004 of an inch for faster break ins for engines that needed less break in times from the factory... , though you could set the tolerance down to .003 inch clearance of the pistons and cylinder for a much tighter fit, but slower break in times..

I would bore the cylinder and put a .003 inch clearance in the cylinder of v8 engines.
I also cut valves, rods, etc, on machining equipment.

Taking into account this was a long time ago in engines from the 1960's. the engine parts from the 1930's and 40's were still much older and had much different metal properties that the engines I worked on... and now they are completely different metal properties and break in periods..

the differences are the metals, and cast and forged engine components.. and the rings are totally different too... The oils were absolutely different back then, they were non detergent oils...

I was thinking the tolerances must have been much looser, as they really didn't have time to run long break ins to get performance.

The altitude difference and the condensation from going up and coming down in altitude is considerable and must have introduced a lot more water into the engines and oil, from more open breathing designs of engines...

The condensation buildup or moisture in aircraft (of any age) is significant from the changes in altitude and humidity, inside and outside of aircraft, and even more so when pressurized. Those engines must have been through hell to go into war when new, and no time to break in parts..

I could see how there could be large differences in the performance of the same type aircraft... as the first few hours of engine running made a lot of difference in the life of the aircraft parts.. so a 50-100 kmh difference makes sense..

[TheGrunch]

I know that there no Boost button but under a FM coding point of view the boost behavior is equal to WEP.

That´s because you should make overheating and damage for it so the best way is implement it in the code as is done with WEP.
When they say "boost" they just mean manifold pressure i.e. the throttle setting. The term doesn't always refer to any kind of emergency power. The overheating behaviour doesn't necessarily correspond between the aircraft capable of operating at +12lb/sq. in. and previous variants because different fuels were used. What was previously unsafe using 87 octane fuel would be achievable for limited periods and what was previously a 5 minute limit might then be a 15 minute limit, etc. Likewise there might be no changes to some of the operating limits. The devil is in the details. It's a struggle to find all the details because amendments to RAF Pilots' Notes and other such documents were often pasted on or clipped in as loose paper, and we usually only have scans or facsimiles of full editions to refer to.

[camber]

They made that line I added from B6's data by incorrectly amending the Spitfire FM. They need to make the Patch boost line align with the 6 1/4 lbs (thin pale blue) line. Then it will be modelled correctly for 87 Octane, +6 1/4lbs, 3 blade constant speed propeller, i.e. the Spitfire MkI we have now.

Its the +12lbs line achieved using 100 octane and boost cutout override that we hope they are working on because without it we don't have the BoB. We have "thank god they didn't come in November 1939".

Klem, I agree totally.

So to summarise as I understand it, we currently have a Spit I that has low alt performance about right for boost controlled at +4 psi (although the gauge reads +6 1/4 psi, the correct boost setpoint for 87 octane). The new plots suggest that this performance might be degraded in the patch to about equivalent to if the boost controller setpoint was +2 1/4 psi. Of course this leaves aside that frontline BoB Spit Is had 100 octane and a modified boost control cutout that increased the boost setpoint to +12 psi, and we don't know if the devs have any plans to fix that.

B6 if this is correct, I don't think the Spit I will be useable in MP, it is almost unusable now.

Wouldn't it be cool if the Spit I and Hurricane boost cutout actually worked? Incidently this would tell us the octane number of the fuel in those virtual tanks.

If they are unmodified and running 87, pulling the cutout at full throttle on the deck would give an instant +17psi boost. The engine would make horrible noises, lose power and become damaged in short order. Sneaking the throttle up tells you the octane, if it starts making the predetonation plinking noise (that the game seems to model) at around +7psi, it is 87. +12 psi, it is 100 octane. Greater than that, it must be 150 octane (seems a bit unlikely :)). Of course with 100 octane the boost cutout should have been virtually modified so that it is no longer a cutout, but instead controls boost at the higher +12 psi value.

The boost cutout in the Spit II is a bit strange, it just unlocks a bit more boost but clearly it has 87 octane inside as it starts to predetonate at around +7 psi.

EDIT INCORRECT STATEMENT with mixture/ rpm changes the Spit II will sit happily on +9 psi and go 320 mph IAS/TAS on the deck So it models 100 octane boost behaviour.

But if we have to have to use Spit Is and Hurris in their pre-Battle of France fuel configuration, the original (working) boost cutout would be fun! People would be using it to squeeze a little more power from their 87 octane but blowing up motors left right and centre. A bit arcade I know but I would love seeing it in MP. Perhaps a server side setting would be useful if you didn't want it ("crew chief secretly used extra thick wire on boost cutout after what happened last time" setting).

It is a problem that WEP configurations for combat edge carry little penalty if modelled correctly..because the problem is for the virtual erks or the next guy that flies your plane if problems are not addressed. Again most people would consider it arcade, but I would love to see that if you used combat concessions, you are that "next guy"...engine wear is accellerated over reality to "simulate" that effect. People would only use WEP configurations if they really thought their virtual life was in danger or interception was critical.

Well, you can dream,
camber

BTW Ramstein, great post on engine stuff

[fruitbat]

iirc camber, what you see in the spit II is acurate for what you would see when the boost cut out is used, as the actual gauge at that time only went up to 8, so that is your indication of 100 octane fuel.

[camber]

iirc camber, what you see in the spit II is acurate for what you would see when the boost cut out is used, as the actual gauge at that time only went up to 8, so that is your indication of 100 octane fuel.

Thanks Fruitbat,

I will have another look offline where you can turn off the cockpit and get a higher reaching boost guage.

I was basing that on flying in ATAG MP in the II and pulling the cutout, the engine was making the odd distressed noise I considered the devs use to signal predetonation at around +7psi, so I assumed 87 octane but I will recheck.

Would be interesting if the II modelled a modified boost cutout system but where a confused erk but in 87 octane limiting the useful boost to +7 psi :)

[fruitbat]

when using the boost cut out with the spit II adjust the fuel mix, and the engine runs fine. Have no idea if that is historical, but thats how it is in game.

[camber]

when using the boost cut out with the spit II adjust the fuel mix, and the engine runs fine. Have no idea if that is historical, but thats how it is in game.

Really!? I had no idea! I already felt overly advantaged in the II and that was without using the boost cutout.

Any idea of how 1) how much total boost can you get this way and 2) how much boost can you get with a healthy sounding engine? If 2) is > +7psi you are correct, 100 octane is in the tank.

Edit: In the end Spit II can happily function at +9psi and so is 100 octane

[41Sqn_Banks]

I know an easy fix for that, since the graph WEP shows performance which was achiveable without WEP in real life, simply rewrite the WEP line to Nominal in the FM.

Then add a new WEP line in the FM which is only useable for 1 min / ca 1.5 km and boost performance even further.

Things would be perffect then, and very historical. :D ;)



I don't remember seeing such restriction. It would be strange in the DB manual anyways.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/watermark.php?file=20311

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/db601a-curve.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/db601-power.jpg

Note that "1 minute power" is only given "am Boden beim Abflug" (on ground for take-off) and not given for "in Bodennähe" (near ground level). There is nothing that indicates that "1 minute power" could be used up to FTH.

But I agree that the "5 minute power" at sea level is to slow for most of the presented post-patch graphs.

[FFCW_Urizen]

when using the boost cut out with the spit II adjust the fuel mix, and the engine runs fine. Have no idea if that is historical, but thats how it is in game.

i remember having read on these very forums, that +12 boost was cleared only in conjunction with weak mixture. however ingame i could use boost cut-out for ages whilst having rich mixture (below 3000ft).

[klem]

I know that there no Boost button but under a FM coding point of view the boost behavior is equal to WEP.

That´s because you should make overheating and damage for it so the best way is implement it in the code as is done with WEP.

"Boost" is alway present, its the manifold pressure, and is increased and decreased by the movement of the throttle, from below -4lbs (closed throttle) up to + 6 1/4 lbs at full throttle. There is a limit to the time +6 1/4lbs can be used otherwise damage results. This is already coded in.

The problem may be this: if we assume that the gauge reading of +6 1/4lbs is a true value, i.e. it truly represents the maximum manifold pressure, then there is something wrong in the conversion of the boost value to thrust and speed. I don't know how this is coded in CoD but its probably somewhere in the chain of formulas and values that convert throttle position to manifold pressure, manifold pressure to engine power output, rpm setting, propeller/thrust modelling, drag factors, atmospheric pressure, and probably other factors, to arrive at speed.

I assume several of these are the same for both Spitfire and Hurricane (same engine, same propeller) so it could be a common factor (engine modelling) and/or different aerodynamics for the two aircraft (they are both undermodelled at low altitude).

[macro]

Is there a graph for the spit IIa (real life, before and after patch lines)?

[klem]

Is there a graph for the spit IIa (real life, before and after patch lines)?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=413999&postcount=1

[fruitbat]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=413999&postcount=1

Thats the Spit Mk I, he asked for the Mk II mate, As far as i'm aware B6 hasn't posted the Mk II yet.

[klem]

Thats the Spit Mk I, he asked for the Mk II mate, As far as i'm aware B6 hasn't posted the Mk II yet.

I was pointing to
I don't have any other graphs or information now.

[beepee]

hope so.

like I said, it's only a shame (and only a game). I'm not going to die over it.
Overall I'm happy with the game.Boy! your easily pleased!!!

[SiThSpAwN]

Boy! your easily pleased!!!

No, its more of a glass half full/half empty type of thing I am sure....

[beepee]

No, its more of a glass half full/half empty type of thing I am sure....yes maybe your right ??

[camber]

The problem may be this: if we assume that the gauge reading of +6 1/4lbs is a true value, i.e. it truly represents the maximum manifold pressure, then there is something wrong in the conversion of the boost value to thrust and speed. I don't know how this is coded in CoD but its probably somewhere in the chain of formulas and values that convert throttle position to manifold pressure, manifold pressure to engine power output, rpm setting, propeller/thrust modelling, drag factors, atmospheric pressure, and probably other factors, to arrive at speed.

It's hard without knowing how the devs have configured their flight model formulae, but it seems likely to be as you say. Of course coding in this way makes it hard to calibrate to exact speed vs altitude (or any other) profile, as max speed (i.e where accelleration = 0) is at the termination of a chain of calculations where changes along the chain (to constants or altering the formulae themselves) can have unpredictable effects, and it may come down to laborious trial and error getting the two curves to match. Of course just getting the speed vs altitude curve right does not mean sim fidelity, for example if the plane accellerates in a non historical way to get there.

But we can compare along the chain where there is historical data, and currently boost is kind of right but the final speeds are wrong.

There are some problems with boost though, last night looking at the offline with cockpit off (apologies, I'm sure similar data has cropped up in many other threads):

Spits and Hurris have a boost controller (red cutout "off") that gives +5 1/4 to +5 1/2 psi minus boost cutout at 3000rpm full throttle. Boost drops as soon as the throttle is retarded, so CoD model is closest to the "variable datum" type of boost controller for all RAF aircraft. This should be +6 1/4 psi though.

Oddly, CoD boost increases to about right (+6.2 psi) when rpm is decreased to the 2600-2800 rpm range. From my reading this is incorrect, the boost controller should not be rpm dependant.

The Spit II with boost cutout activated (sea level; full throttle) achieves +9psi at 2600 rpm, +8psi at 3000 rpm (again the rpm-boost quirk). So the CoD Spit II acts most like a 100 octane conversion where the cutout was modified for +9 instead of +12 psi. At 3000rpm, the engine makes some distressed noises/ vibration but does not fail. Dropping rpm to 2600 rpm and/or putting mixture to weak smooths the engine. At sea level, boost cutout on, rad half open, weak mixture, 2600 rpm and +9 psi boost I could maintain 320 mph (IAS and TAS) for a full sortie. That is some serious speed (512 kmh)

The CoD Spit Ia/Hurri act (in boost characteristics) like 100 octane conversions where someone drilled the wrong size holes in error and gave tiny increments in boost. You can see the boost cutout effect in Hurri at 2600 rpm if you turn it off and on and watch the boost gauge(+6.2 to +6.4 psi), alhough I could not detect a speed difference. So you can't tell if the virtual tanks have 87 or 100 octane in them, it doesn't matter because the boost never gets high enough.

But getting the boost behaviour exactly right doesn't help much if the model does not pass the next check..that the boost combined with other inputs ends up producing overall performance in line with historical norms...which is more of a problem.

I didn't realise the Spit II could sit on 320 mph. Had an online sortie on ATAG, I just zigzagged up and down the channel on the wavetops at 320 mph, and started bouncing people from below. Fun, but not very historical I guess :)

camber

[Buchon]

Well ... all the problems that they have adapting the performance curve to RL comes from the inefficiency of the formulae to bring the fast boost of the pressure changes (+6 psi at full throttle).

A base curve and then add pressure changes to the FM, as I said, is a effective method to fix this, but is only my opinion.

Whatever is the solution I hope that they are on it.

[Triggaaar]

Speed graphs for SpitfireGiven that most fighting tends to happen below 6,000m, the current game is closer to the flight tests than the patch.

[Insuber]

It's hard without knowing how the devs have configured their flight model formulae, but it seems likely to be as you say. Of course coding in this way makes it hard to calibrate to exact speed vs altitude (or any other) profile, as max speed (i.e where accelleration = 0) is at the termination of a chain of calculations where changes along the chain (to constants or altering the formulae themselves) can have unpredictable effects, and it may come down to laborious trial and error getting the two curves to match. Of course just getting the speed vs altitude curve right does not mean sim fidelity, for example if the plane accellerates in a non historical way to get there.

But we can compare along the chain where there is historical data, and currently boost is kind of right but the final speeds are wrong.

There are some problems with boost though, last night looking at the offline with cockpit off (apologies, I'm sure similar data has cropped up in many other threads):

Spits and Hurris have a boost controller (red cutout "off") that gives +5 1/4 to +5 1/2 psi minus boost cutout at 3000rpm full throttle. Boost drops as soon as the throttle is retarded, so CoD model is closest to the "variable datum" type of boost controller for all RAF aircraft. This should be +6 1/4 psi though.

Oddly, CoD boost increases to about right (+6.2 psi) when rpm is decreased to the 2600-2800 rpm range. From my reading this is incorrect, the boost controller should not be rpm dependant.

The Spit II with boost cutout activated (sea level; full throttle) achieves +9psi at 2600 rpm, +8psi at 3000 rpm (again the rpm-boost quirk). So the CoD Spit II acts most like a 100 octane conversion where the cutout was modified for +9 instead of +12 psi. At 3000rpm, the engine makes some distressed noises/ vibration but does not fail. Dropping rpm to 2600 rpm and/or putting mixture to weak smooths the engine. At sea level, boost cutout on, rad half open, weak mixture, 2600 rpm and +9 psi boost I could maintain 320 mph (IAS and TAS) for a full sortie. That is some serious speed (512 kmh)

The CoD Spit Ia/Hurri act (in boost characteristics) like 100 octane conversions where someone drilled the wrong size holes in error and gave tiny increments in boost. You can see the boost cutout effect in Hurri at 2600 rpm if you turn it off and on and watch the boost gauge(+6.2 to +6.4 psi), alhough I could not detect a speed difference. So you can't tell if the virtual tanks have 87 or 100 octane in them, it doesn't matter because the boost never gets high enough.

But getting the boost behaviour exactly right doesn't help much if the model does not pass the next check..that the boost combined with other inputs ends up producing overall performance in line with historical norms...which is more of a problem.

I didn't realise the Spit II could sit on 320 mph. Had an online sortie on ATAG, I just zigzagged up and down the channel on the wavetops at 320 mph, and started bouncing people from below. Fun, but not very historical I guess :)

camber

Good work camber, thank you. FM's are a complete mess today, but the team is working on that. Let's hope that the final result is better than what we have now, with uber Spit II and Hurricane, and poor G.50 crippled to complete uselessness.

Cheers!

[II/JG54_Emil]

What....the UBER - G50???? LOL


ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber

???

What are you guys talking and complaining about?

I can´t hear all this complaining anymore.

[Robo.]

???

What are you guys talking and complaining about?

I can´t hear all this complaining anymore.

Emil that was actually a joke about G.50... Good one btw. :grin:

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by CWMV
I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument.........................I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all timeI removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

If you are trying to say that his arguments are foul because he does fly blue, then the same applies to red pilots.

Ergo, nobody flying red or blue only may argue.

I don´t think you want to say that, do you?

[335th_GRAthos]

We all took a concious decision, to have 1C concentrate their ressources to make a better graphics model.
It is therefore beyond doubt that we will have to wait for the graphics model to get finalised and afterwards, the long, hard discussion about the flight models will start.

I have always avoided discussions because speed is only one parameter; There is a lot more which plays a role in a dogfight.

What I would really like to see is that somebody downloads the CoD plane parameters and creates an IL2Compare like we had for IL2!

http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/il2compare_bf109_spit.jpg

http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/il2compare_funplot.jpg

If we have that, we will have the required transparency to start discussions.

As I had commented in the improvements thread months ago, watching the "wing load" responsiveness of the airplanes (can be seen by the planes flying reasonably well with half-wing sawn off) makes me believe that, as far as the FM of COD is concerned, "speed" is one small piece of the puzzle.

~S~

[ATAG_Snapper]

Emil that was actually a joke about G.50... Good one btw. :grin:

I think his "U's" with the two little dots over them are overmodelled........

[bongodriver]

Ubermodelled...

[Sutts]

It's hard without knowing how the devs have configured their flight model formulae, but it seems likely to be as you say. Of course coding in this way makes it hard to calibrate to exact speed vs altitude (or any other) profile, as max speed (i.e where accelleration = 0) is at the termination of a chain of calculations where changes along the chain (to constants or altering the formulae themselves) can have unpredictable effects, and it may come down to laborious trial and error getting the two curves to match. Of course just getting the speed vs altitude curve right does not mean sim fidelity, for example if the plane accellerates in a non historical way to get there.

But we can compare along the chain where there is historical data, and currently boost is kind of right but the final speeds are wrong.

There are some problems with boost though, last night looking at the offline with cockpit off (apologies, I'm sure similar data has cropped up in many other threads):

Spits and Hurris have a boost controller (red cutout "off") that gives +5 1/4 to +5 1/2 psi minus boost cutout at 3000rpm full throttle. Boost drops as soon as the throttle is retarded, so CoD model is closest to the "variable datum" type of boost controller for all RAF aircraft. This should be +6 1/4 psi though.

Oddly, CoD boost increases to about right (+6.2 psi) when rpm is decreased to the 2600-2800 rpm range. From my reading this is incorrect, the boost controller should not be rpm dependant.

The Spit II with boost cutout activated (sea level; full throttle) achieves +9psi at 2600 rpm, +8psi at 3000 rpm (again the rpm-boost quirk). So the CoD Spit II acts most like a 100 octane conversion where the cutout was modified for +9 instead of +12 psi. At 3000rpm, the engine makes some distressed noises/ vibration but does not fail. Dropping rpm to 2600 rpm and/or putting mixture to weak smooths the engine. At sea level, boost cutout on, rad half open, weak mixture, 2600 rpm and +9 psi boost I could maintain 320 mph (IAS and TAS) for a full sortie. That is some serious speed (512 kmh)

The CoD Spit Ia/Hurri act (in boost characteristics) like 100 octane conversions where someone drilled the wrong size holes in error and gave tiny increments in boost. You can see the boost cutout effect in Hurri at 2600 rpm if you turn it off and on and watch the boost gauge(+6.2 to +6.4 psi), alhough I could not detect a speed difference. So you can't tell if the virtual tanks have 87 or 100 octane in them, it doesn't matter because the boost never gets high enough.

But getting the boost behaviour exactly right doesn't help much if the model does not pass the next check..that the boost combined with other inputs ends up producing overall performance in line with historical norms...which is more of a problem.

I didn't realise the Spit II could sit on 320 mph. Had an online sortie on ATAG, I just zigzagged up and down the channel on the wavetops at 320 mph, and started bouncing people from below. Fun, but not very historical I guess :)

camber


This is another problem with the engine model - switching to auto weak mixture at high boost settings should have quite the opposite affect, causing severe detonation and rapid engine damage. The manual states a maximum boost of 3 3/4 lb when using a weak mixture. These are 100 octane settings and you can halve them if using 87 octane.

[camber]

I agree Sutts, that mixture feature of the CloD Spit II does not make sense. I can live with it but I would rather it not be there.

I also am concerned about the fact that top speed in the Hurri and Spits is achieved at lower rpm than maximum (2600-2800 vs 3000). I have not seen any historical reference that to get top level speed, you should retard rpm. On the contrary, maximum speed data is given for 3000rpm.

I suspect it is a consequence of the rpm-boost quirk of the CloD engine model. Lowering rpm from 3000 to 2600 in CloD adds some boost (although in reality the boost controller should be keeping boost constant regardless of rpm). More boost = more power = more thrust in the flight model (presumably), so the non-historical boost increase at lowered rpm gives a corresponding non-historical speed increase at lowered rpm.

[IvanK]

In the various Spit Speed tests in the Nat archives I actually came across one report that actually achieved better speed at 2800RPM than 3000RPM. It was so unusual that it was cause for comment in the report. I will try and hunt it down.

Edit Found a ref to this phenomenon in Hurricane I ROTOL trials. In the Hurricane test they specifically tested for for this phenomenon as it had occurred on Spit I ROTOL trials on aircraft N3171 in AAE/692. This reference in the Hurricane report AVIA 16/681 Hurricane I ROTOL Trials.

Here is the relevant page in the Hurricane tests that references it:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Hurrurpmspeed.jpg

EDIT 2
Here is the text from the N3171 report:

4.2 Controlling R.P.M. Speed tests were made at three heights below full throttle height with the boost pressure maintained constant at 6¼ lb. per sq.inch whilst the R.P.M. was varied over a range from 2600 to 3000.

The results show that the maximum level speed is reached with the airscrew controlling at 2800 engine r.p.m. On increasing the r.p.m. to 3000 the speed was reduced, on the average by 4 m.p.h.

For the particular engine fitted there is a reduction of 17 b.h.p. at constant boost (+6¼ lb) when the r.p.m. are increased from 2800 to 3000. The loss of speed is therefore probably due to the loss of power accompanied by a slight decrease in airscrew efficiency. The matter is being further investigated by Messrs.Rolls-Royce and Messrs.Rotols. It will be noted that reducing the R.P.M. from 3000 to 2800 lowers the full throttle height by 2000 feet.

Conclusions.

1.This aeroplane has a much better take-off and climbs faster than other Spitfires fitted with wooden fixed pitch or metal two pitch airscrews.

2.There is a drop of 13 m.p.h in maximum level speed compared with the 2-pitch airscrew aeroplane but of this, 8 m.p.h. can be attributed to sources other than the airscrew.

3. Below full throttle height an increase in speed of about 4 m.p.h. can be attained by controlling the engine R.P.M. at 2800 instead of 3000.

4.The limiting diving speed can be reached much more rapidly with this aeroplane than with Spitfires fitted with fixed pitch wooden and 2-pitch metal airscrews.

This text cut and paste coming from here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

[Sutts]

I agree Sutts, that mixture feature of the CloD Spit II does not make sense. I can live with it but I would rather it not be there.

I also am concerned about the fact that top speed in the Hurri and Spits is achieved at lower rpm than maximum (2600-2800 vs 3000). I have not seen any historical reference that to get top level speed, you should retard rpm. On the contrary, maximum speed data is given for 3000rpm.

I suspect it is a consequence of the rpm-boost quirk of the CloD engine model. Lowering rpm from 3000 to 2600 in CloD adds some boost (although in reality the boost controller should be keeping boost constant regardless of rpm). More boost = more power = more thrust in the flight model (presumably), so the non-historical boost increase at lowered rpm gives a corresponding non-historical speed increase at lowered rpm.


I'd just like to add that RPM does affect boost in reality. The greater the RPM, the greater the suction in the intake leading to lower intake pressure. With lower RPMs the suction reduces and the pressure rises slightly.

However, if the boost is high enough for the boost cutout mechanism to be in operation then no change in boost should be apparent with a change in RPM since the mechanism will automatically compensate to keep boost at it's maximum permissable value. I believe this is what you are referring to. Just don't want people thinking the whole link between RPM and boost is a quirk in CloD.

[camber]

Hi Sutts,

I agree with you but would state it slightly differently:

Although manifold pressure ("boost") and rpm are linked in a physical sense, the Merlin boost controller manipulates the throttle valve to maintain a boost pressure setpoint. It will compensate for rpm and height changes within it's mechanical limits, and thus keep boost pressure constant.

IvanK:

Very interesting report. It does make sense that the airscrew efficiency curve could cause a reduction in thrust with increasing rpm. But I think you are right that this is an unusual finding in a specific case that requires investigation. There is not much point giving 3000 rpm availability on the CSP control generally (as was ubiquitous on Hurris and Spits) if this represents a thrust reduction due going past an optimum on a prop efficiency curve.

[vnvv_stea]

Sorry for the stupid question, but summaryze the report, what is the maximum achieved speed on Hurry Rotol and Spit Rotol?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Spitfire IA (beta patch): 248 mph @ 0m

[Kurfürst]

That's a 'tad' bit too slow. I assume this is for combat rating, 6.25 / 3000..?

[41Sqn_Banks]

All out +6.25 and 3,000 RPM, however change from 2,600 RPM to 3,000 RPM didn't make a notable difference. Radiator open/close also didn't change anything

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

So still that radiator bug ...

My fear is that there are so many issues and considering that they are currently working on the big issues right now and how long it takes, it will take another 3 years to fix this sort of issues ... *sigh*

[klem]

Spitfire IA (beta patch): 248 mph @ 0m

Should be 284mph (305 :(

My friend tells me he can't get Spit II to more than 270mph @ 500feet, should be ~290mph :(
He also finds max Hurricane speed at SL is 220mph. Not even what they published for the patch (272mph) or RL data 262mph.

EDIT: I found Hurri gives 234mph

[camber]

Well, my beta patch gives me CTDs within 5 mins of taking off in ATAG MP. 50% of people chatting seem to be in the same boat, whereas the other 50% are totally CTD cured for hours on end. Go figure :)

So what else to do but go single player, turn off the cockpit and get SL speeds for the patch?

Technique: skim waves, centre ball, settle as close as possible to 0fpm. As noted above the tool tip in cockpit view does not agree with the cockpit guage (possibly it rounds down to nearest 10mph?), all these speeds are based on the guage in no cockpit view.

My SL speeds and observations:

Spit II
275-280mph 3000rpm full throttle (~6.25psi boost)
290-295mph 3000rpm full throttle red tab (~9psi boost)

rpm boost quirk (drop in rpm increases boost) is gone, boost stays constant with rpm. Dropping rpm to 2600rpm does not lead to speed increase any more

Spit Ia

255-260 mph 3000rpm full throttle (~6.25psi boost)

As per Spit II, rpm boost quirk is gone (boost constant with rpm), and dropping rpm now does not increase speed. Boost cut out still does nothing.

Rotol Hurri

240-245mph 3000rpm full throttle (~5.25psi boost)

Boost quirk is still there for the Hurri, i.e boost increases to approx correct value (+6.25 psi) only if rpm dropped to 2600rpm. However unlike before, this does not increase speed.

109E4
with prop auto at 2300rpm only
450-460kmh (280-286mph) at 1.35ata
460-470kmh (286-292mph) at 1.45ata


On the bright side, E4/Spit II matchup may be rather "balanced" with max SL speeds almost identical. Both Spit Ia and Rotol Hurri are now "I like a challenge" only planes :)

camber

[klem]

Well, my beta patch gives me CTDs within 5 mins of taking off in ATAG MP. 50% of people chatting seem to be in the same boat, whereas the other 50% are totally CTD cured for hours on end. Go figure :)

So what else to do but go single player, turn off the cockpit and get SL speeds for the patch?

Technique: skim waves, centre ball, settle as close as possible to 0fpm. As noted above the tool tip in cockpit view does not agree with the cockpit guage (possibly it rounds down to nearest 10mph?), all these speeds are based on the guage in no cockpit view.

My SL speeds and observations:

Spit II
275-280mph 3000rpm full throttle (~6.25psi boost)
290-295mph 3000rpm full throttle red tab (~9psi boost)

rpm boost quirk (drop in rpm increases boost) is gone, boost stays constant with rpm. Dropping rpm to 2600rpm does not lead to speed increase any more

Spit Ia

255-260 mph 3000rpm full throttle (~6.25psi boost)

As per Spit II, rpm boost quirk is gone (boost constant with rpm), and dropping rpm now does not increase speed. Boost cut out still does nothing.

Rotol Hurri

240-245mph 3000rpm full throttle (~5.25psi boost)

Boost quirk is still there for the Hurri, i.e boost increases to approx correct value (+6.25 psi) only if rpm dropped to 2600rpm. However unlike before, this does not increase speed.

109E4
with prop auto at 2300rpm only
450-460kmh (280-286mph) at 1.35ata
460-470kmh (286-292mph) at 1.45ata


On the bright side, E4/Spit II matchup may be rather "balanced" with max SL speeds almost identical. Both Spit Ia and Rotol Hurri are now "I like a challenge" only planes :)

camber

I think you're right about the tooltip and I removed that from my post but we can't get those speeds on line :(

[41Sqn_Banks]

I was read the cockpit gauge. But there could be simple texture mapping errors. I think we should standardize on use of no-cockpit-view gauges for test flights.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I think you're right about the tooltip and I removed that from my post but we can't get those speeds on line :(

Hmmm, is it possible that there is a difference between offline and online performance of aircraft in Cliffs of Dover? I was unable to achieve (online) the values that Camber did offline.

EDIT: Just did some testing of the Spitfire Ia and IIa offline and online (ATAG Server). Looks like there may be a different curve for the Spitfire IIa between online and offline flying. This might explain the difference between what Camber recorded and what is happening online. Please ignore the A2A data -- apples to oranges to Cliffs of Dover.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?1516-Spitfire-Trials-CoD-vs-A2A&p=12238#post12238

[ATAG_Snapper]

@BlackSix: Why does the Spitfire Mark IIa fly so differently offline vs online? Per my findings on #6 post at http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?1516-Spitfire-Trials-CoD-vs-A2A&p=12238#post12238

[GraveyardJimmy]

@BlackSix: Why does the Spitfire Mark IIa fly so differently offline vs online? Per my findings on #6 post at http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?1516-Spitfire-Trials-CoD-vs-A2A&p=12238#post12238

It might help if you reupload the file to this forum or somewhere the devs dont have to sign up to read (as I assume they wont bother).

[ATAG_Snapper]

It might help if you reupload the file to this forum or somewhere the devs dont have to sign up to read (as I assume they wont bother).

I tried Jimmy -- the pdf file exceeds the minimal 19 kb limit set by 1C. I'll see if there isn't another format I can use that will be accepted by this forum.

I have to think that if a dev can't be bothered checking into the forum of one of the busiest Cliffs of Dover servers.....then they'll hardly be bothered looking at a chart....:rolleyes:

[ATAG_Dutch]

Another interesting test to perform with the Spits is maximum speed in a dive.

It's difficult to get over 400mph, even from 15,000ft in a vertical dive, and if you force it to 420mph, your ailerons and rudder fall off. This is in the Ia and IIa, the MkI seems more resilient, but still no more speed IIRC.

Although any speed trial is difficult at the moment with the over-sensitive/non-functioning throttle control.

[Kurfürst]

I have noted the same during my roll rate tests with the Mk II, its very hard to reach 400 mph. This was before the beta patch.

[klem]

I tried Jimmy -- the pdf file exceeds the minimal 19 kb limit set by 1C. I'll see if there isn't another format I can use that will be accepted by this forum.

I have to think that if a dev can't be bothered checking into the forum of one of the busiest Cliffs of Dover servers.....then they'll hardly be bothered looking at a chart....:rolleyes:

Screen shot it and post as .jpg

[ATAG_Snapper]

Screen shot it and post as .jpg

That works! :grin: