a possible solution for overheating & low speed spitfire/hurricane in last Beta patch

[zapatista]

for those of you who are having problems, and for those who have looked in detail at what the real airspeed figures are for this aircraft, there is an interesting comment made by one of the desastersoft folks on what can be done with these aircraft to get better/more-realistic performance

quoted from HeinKill's recent post at simhq

Many players are grumbling about RAF kites overheating, blowing up, and performing poorly with the 1.08 patch. Discussing this with Thomas Voss of Desastersoft, this is his response:

There is no problem with Spitfire or Hurricane here on last Beta. I have no overheating or speed lost on full real settings.

Try following:
Open Cowling FULL before start engine and Do not close it!

Then inflight use throttle and Prop Pitch so, that you are not in “Boost” line. If you stay on this, out of combat, you increase enough speed and have cool engine. Use the boost line only in combat and at climbing. At straight flight keep RPM at round about 2600 to 2900 and watch in red boost section on the instrument. If you decrease RPM, Preasure goes up and comes to the Red Section. This can kill the Engine because of overpressure.

seems he knows what he is talking about, worth a try :)

if this is correct, it illustrates one of our biggest problems with CoD and the various patches, we dont have a decent manual. it is also rather asymetrical that the 109 can be flown like a semi automatic noob friendly modern aircraft that can fly around on fire for ages and have no performance hits, and a 6 yo can land it with ease (compared to the historical 30% of all 109's being lost in takeoff and landing accidents because it was so twitchy and skittish, and with the allied planes we have to fiddle with lots of twiddly bits to squeeze some halfway decent performance out of it

i digress, worth trying mr desastersofts suggestions for those having problems :)

[Kwiatek]

BS....

There is a lot problems with Spitifres and Hurricanes:

- all of them are too slow expecially at the deck - no engine settings change these. 87 Octan fuel versions ( +6 1/4 boost) are slow about 20-30 mph and 100 Octan fuel versions at emergency boost +12 lbs only reach historical speeds of + 6 1/4 boost version which mean that they are too slow also about 20-30mph. So its mean that all british fighters in CLOD are too slow about 20-30 mph. 109 is also too slow but much less - ab. 20-30 kph.

- no British plane in CLOD could maintain historical engine power settings from manuals without overheat and engine damage

Here are historical engine power settings from manuals:

Merlin III with CSP at 87 Octan fuel:

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +6 1/4 at 2600 RPM
Continous cruising- +4 1/2 at 2600 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit) - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM

Merlin III at 100 Octan :

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour)- +6 1/4 at 2850 RPM ( below 20 000 ft)
- 3000 RPM (above 20 000 ft)
All-out level flight (5 minutes) - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)
Emergency power (5 minutes) - +12 lbs at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)

Merlin XII at 100 Octan

Max take off - +12 at 3000 RPM
(emergency 3 or 5-minutes also)
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +9 at 2850 RPM
Continous cruising- +7 at 2650 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit)- +9 at 3000 RPM

Try the same in CLOD i mean expecially emergency power and nominal power ( climbing power) and you will see how long your engine will runing without damage.

[ATAG_Dutch]

See here Zap. :)

The RAF FMs are totally porked, but yes there are ways round it until the dev's put it right. The comment re: 100% rad is total BS, so in that I agree with Kwiatek.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34124

[JTDawg]

for those of you who are having problems, and for those who have looked in detail at what the real airspeed figures are for this aircraft, there is an interesting comment made by one of the desastersoft folks on what can be done with these aircraft to get better/more-realistic performance

quoted from HeinKill's recent post at simhq





seems he knows what he is talking about, worth a try :)

if this is correct, it illustrates one of our biggest problems with CoD and the various patches, we dont have a decent manual. it is also rather asymetrical that the 109 can be flown like a semi automatic noob friendly modern aircraft that can fly around on fire for ages and have no performance hits, and a 6 yo can land it with ease (compared to the historical 30% of all 109's being lost in takeoff and landing accidents because it was so twitchy and skittish, and with the allied planes we have to fiddle with lots of twiddly bits to squeeze some halfway decent performance out of it

i digress, worth trying mr desastersofts suggestions for those having problems :)

LMAO man you don"t have a clue. after pages an pages an no less than 50 treads , we fly these planes everyday . every thing you said is bull hocky clueless just clueless

[planespotter]

Interesting. The head developer at Desastersoft knows less about RAF flight models and aircraft and how to fly them, than you guys.

Hmmmmmm.

[jimbop]

Interesting. The head developer at Desastersoft knows less about RAF flight models and aircraft and how to fly them, than you guys.

Surprising but true. The red FMs are just stuffed.

[trademe900]

sorry but I'm also calling total bs on this one too, the problems couldnt be more obvious

[yobnaf]

there are no FM problems. You are wrong

[Slipstream2012]

The allied pilots are the real pilots in this game currently, they don't have cannons, have to manage their engines, and on-top deal with weird reverse mixture settings in some planes.
They have one bomber that falls apart easier than anything the blues have!

And yet the pros have taken what they have, learned about it, and I've seen some amazing flying going on pushing the FM's to their very limit. I tip my hat to you all.

[trademe900]

there are no FM problems. You are wrong

At the risk of looking stupid even asking- that is a troll right?

[trademe900]

The allied pilots are the real pilots in this game currently, they don't have cannons, have to manage their engines, and on-top deal with weird reverse mixture settings in some planes.
They have one bomber that falls apart easier than anything the blues have!

And yet the pros have taken what they have, learned about it, and I've seen some amazing flying going on pushing the FM's to their very limit. I tip my hat to you all.

This is the reason I don't fly 109 anymore, it is just no fun. I'd rather be partially frustrated and facing an actual challenge instead. That is not to say there are some absolutely mind blowing 109 pilots around, all due respect there to all of you. JG26_DavidRed and some of the russian folk on Repka server come to mind.

[JG52Krupi]

At the risk of looking stupid even asking- that is a troll right?

Yes, take a look ladies and gentlemen this is unfortunately what you call the common troll, his kind breed like rabbits and normally run around causing strife with multiple accounts... the best thing to do upon seeing one of these miserable creatures is to pull out your shotgun and... press the report button so the mods can deal with him ;)

[JG52Krupi]

This is the reason I don't fly 109 anymore, it is just no fun. I'd rather be partially frustrated and facing an actual challenge instead. That is not to say there are some absolutely mind blowing 109 pilots around, all due respect there. ATAG David and some of the russian folk on Repka server come to mind.

Yeah, its also annoying trying to dogfight in a 109... its on rails atm... you can go up and down but don't try anything else :(

[Stirwenn]

@ Zapatista : the way described to fly high altitude is right if you're not supposed to fight or if you expect to have some tourism...
I did two runs at 18000fts mini this evening : one the way you say where i stalled at 150/160mph IAS and the second as i'm used to (15-20mns to climb, 2200rpm full throttle and 75% open rad at cruising altitude).
I keep my way to do 'cause my engine is cooler when i engage the fight and if i need some nerves i can push the propeller pitch. If i manage right, i can hope 210mph IAS (338km/h) till my opponent is around 242mph IAS (390km/h). Nothing is worring you there ?
I'm surely not the best virtual fighter, player... so if you get some minutes to have a fly in your timezome, feel free to give me some lessons or simply test yourself first the tips you propose.

[RickRuski]

Here's an interesting article on the performances of Spitfire MK1 and Bf 109E, both of these involved in the Battle of Britain.

The interesting performance data is at low level and this reflects what I have found happening.

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

This is quite a long article so will take some time reading.

[zapatista]

See here Zap. :)

The RAF FMs are totally porked, but yes there are ways round it until the dev's put it right. The comment re: 100% rad is total BS, so in that I agree with Kwiatek.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34124

i know they are seriously porked (see my other posts in this forum lamenting it) because since the game at last became playable with the early august beta patch, i have mainly been using the allied fighters and have experienced exactly those overheating and poor climbing/level airspeed issues when using CEM.

but i havnt had a chance yet to try the disastersoft guy's suggestion of opening the radiator before engine start and then keeping it open continuously during flight (without ever closing it, in case it from then on acts as if staying closed) to see if it makes a difference with the major overheating problem. if this makes some difference (i didnt say "solve" all FM and overheating problems), then it might indicate a bug in addition to the other incorrect FM issues we have with the hurricane and spitfire. in fact i have been doing the exact opposite with CEM, i deliberately keep the radiator closed at engine start and taxi to try warming the engine as quickly as possible and reach correct engine temp needed for takeoff power settings

so, for the other readers who are concerned about trying to resolve FM issues, other then going into hysterics about believing this means there being no problems at all , has anybody tried this new suggestion yet to see if it makes a difference in the overheating behavior ? (i cant see one poster here yet to confirm/reject this). with luthiers limited time and attention to fix the FM issues we have been complaining about, the more information we can give him the better.

[trademe900]

Ok my apologies, you have a point. Will have to try this full radiator before starting procedure. Might be a bug.

[senseispcc]

.
Is anyone here using the prop pitch to maintain the rpm to 2600 water temp to 99 and oil temp to 90 oil pres. 80 engine psi 4.5 to 5.5 radiator open or half closed mixture full rich until 17000 feet less psi higher and higher until 27000. This is not possible on the Spitfire MKI where I go from one pitch to the other depending of water and oil temp you should always monitor oil and water temp and play with the water radiator opening and the throttle and never go over 110 water temp for more than 5 min. I fly long missions in Spitfires and find this a fun but challenging plane to fly. Since the last beta patch I do not use the visual aids for throttle, pitch, radiator, etc… anymore for me it helps. The full raditor thing at take off is written in the Spitfirre manual in the real plane it should be done so why not in the simulated one?

[ATAG_Dutch]

with luthiers limited time and attention to fix the FM issues we have been complaining about, the more information we can give him the better.

Zap, I and many others, have been testing the effects of radiator drag in the game since the latest patch release. Some of the results of the tests are in plain sight all over the forum. If you're suggesting that there is an actual game bug whereby the radiator drag effects are nullified by following this procedure, then by all means test it yourself and report your results.

However, I can tell you now, that the amount of surface area producing drag from the radiator shutters, programmed into the RAF fighters' Engine Modelling, was Doubled from v1.07 to v1.08. It was already 50% greater than the radiator shutter drag surface area plus oil cooler drag surface area modelled into the Bf109's Engine Modelling. This means that this surface area for drag calculation purposes in the RAF fighters is now Triple, three times, 300% greater, than that modelled in the Bf109s.

After extensive testing on a public server with temps effects off, then further extensive testing on a public server with temp effects on, i.e. ATAG server 2 and ATAG server 1 respectively, the workaround with 50% rad seen in the video, (if you even watched the video or followed the link) is the result.

In addition to the excessive radiator drag virtually nullifying any increase in rpm and/or increasing of boost setting, the relationship between adequate airspeed and engine cooling is dramatically more critical in the RAF fighters than in the 109s.

This information (in much greater detail) has already been communicated to both Luthier directly, and their FM programmer via BlackSix directly.

The problems surrounding incorrect mixture modelling also highlighted in the link I gave have also been communicated directly by both me and IvanK.

I would've explained this earlier, but I'm a one fingered typist, and posting stuff of this length more than once gets on my wick a bit. Please read the thread I linked in more detail.

Thanks Mate. ;)

[SlipBall]

I would've explained this earlier, but I'm a one fingered typist, and posting stuff of this length more than once gets on my wick a bit. Please read the thread I linked in more detail.

Thanks Mate. ;)


Funny!...I am a one finger wonder too. Have you considered using speech to text, then copy/paste here. I was going to try that, but then I realized that, I rarely have much to say.:-P...edit: Dutch you have to try this, I just did with zero mistakes using Win 7...give it a try!

[zapatista]

I would've explained this earlier, but I'm a one fingered typist, and posting stuff of this length more than once gets on my wick a bit. Please read the thread I linked in more detail.


thanks for explaining it, i had seen the other thread with people discussing radiator settings and knew some non-logical settings might partially reduce some of the FM issues

the reason for me post this thread was to flag what the disastersoft guy seems to be specifically suggesting in reply to a customer question about overheating, ie to open the radiator before engine start, and then never close or change its setting again. he seems to think that gives a major change for the better, i have no idea if it does (and cant try it for a few days), hence me posting it.

note: i removed the initial closed typo picked up by Dutch's post below , 'cause leaving it in seemed to confuse more people later

[ATAG_Dutch]

suggesting in reply to a customer question about overheating, ie to close the radiator before engine start, and then never open it.

But that's the opposite of what he said Zap. He said;

'Open Cowling FULL before start engine and Do not close it!'

This would currently be equivalent to flying along with a twenty foot parachute tied to your a*se (exaggeration, just in case any purists object).

[zapatista]

But that's the opposite of what he said Zap. He said;

'Open Cowling FULL before start engine and Do not close it!'

This would currently be equivalent to flying along with a twenty foot parachute tied to your a*se (exaggeration, just in case any purists object).

lol, errr, of course you'r right on that last one :) typo in that last post after a long work day (*edit made in original post)

what peaked my interest on his comment is that he set it to open before engine start, and then never touched it again, as if altering its setting after engine start might lock it closed with the engine more prone to overheating from then on (yet still be subject to drag with cowling open). whereas i, and prob most people, close it at start, then keep changing it ones the engines warms up and then mostly keep it open unless at very high altitude

at what started as a simple suggestion (from him) and my wanting to know if others had tried it, it all become a bit long winded and out of proportion, i'll try it on the WE. if from then on you see a high speed spitfire able to match the hun online, that be me and no begging for trade secrets will get me to reveal its method :)

ps: i do note what you said about the parachute effect reversing whatever speed gain might be created

[macro]

But you cant do what you said in reverse. If you leave rad shut the engine blows up. Got me all exited then when i saw title of thread.

[Slipstream2012]

Interesting. The head developer at Desastersoft knows less about RAF flight models and aircraft and how to fly them, than you guys.

Hmmmmmm.

Are you for real?

This guy builds missions, and just because he is apparently good at it, doesn't mean he is any kind of expert in flight-models, far from it, most of the time he'll be in the FMB or scripting.
Even so, its easy to dictate when your shooting up AI on predefined settings which you created, however fighting in RAF planes online in a full realism server is a whole different ball game and it takes skill to do it.

He needs to get back to mission building and stop the childish one-sided propaganda, which is getting quite tiring, its obvious the FM's are badly screwed up.
And if he's so sure they are not, I invite him online to take any RAF plane & I'll take the G.50.

[louisv]

Does anybody fly the A2A Spit on FSX ?, it would be interesting to compare.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Does anybody fly the A2A Spit on FSX ?, it would be interesting to compare.

I do, frequently. The cockpits are similar, but they fly like two different aircraft, especially with the current 1.08 beta.

The A2A Spitfire MK 2a and the CoD Spitfire MK 2a ver 1.05 (current Steam retail version) are the closest in terms of performance.

B6 closed down an earlier thread re A2A Spitfire, and may well do the same for this one -- this is the Official 1C Forum after all.

[Nephris]

Call be an a$$, but ....it reminds be a kind of the spirits that u v cited....
Somehow it is more than funny, as in those threads are always the same suspects crying out loud.

Before summer the red FMs werent that bad, nevertheless in good old IL2- manner our sissywhiners started their buisness again crying for this ,moaing for that, and actually the complete FMs were bad at all.

Now the devs "fixxed" something, as you wanted them to change sth,
but again everything is porked and useless. Admitted the red FM is really kind of useless atm, although if u fly the Sissy like a 109 CEM it doesnt get heated.

However, maybe some will learn from this development in the future.

Seriously, if the effects on global servers wouldnt be that bad due the red FM, this would be so funny.

:grin:

[macro]

Call be an a$$, but ....it reminds be a kind of the spirits that u v cited....
Somehow it is more than funny, as in those threads are always the same suspects crying out loud.

Before summer the red FMs werent that bad, nevertheless in good old IL2- manner our sissywhiners started their buisness again crying for this ,moaing for that, and actually the complete FMs were bad at all.

Now the devs "fixxed" something, as you wanted them to change sth,
but again everything is porked and useless. Admitted the red FM is really kind of useless atm, although if u fly the Sissy like a 109 CEM it doesnt get heated.

However, maybe some will learn from this development in the future.

Seriously, if the effects on global servers wouldnt be that bad due the red FM, this would be so funny.

:grin:

if you fly the spit like a 109? is that what you meant? it doesnt over heat?

you are either trolling, or i misunderstood your post. please clarify

as things are, i fly the 109 full throttle until im ready to land. it doesnt come close to overheating.

and when did the spit become known as the Sissy? that seems rather childish way to try to annoy red pilots, so i would assume this is just another troll post.

[pstyle]

'Open Cowling FULL before start engine and Do not close it!'
.
OK, So I've decided to test this little suggestion from Thomas Voss of Desastersoft:

I flew a spitfire 2a, with 50% fuel.
I've carried out testing at three altitudes >250ft, 5,000ft and 10,000ft.
I tested the airspeed at 2400, 2600 and 2800 RPM at each altitude.
Boost pressure was ALWAYS adjusted to read +5 in each case.
All tests were carried out with 100% open radiator
All speeds are indicated, at straight and level flight.
The ONLY variable was this - one test 1 I opened the radiator before starting the engine. In test 2 I waited until I was nearly airborne before opening the radiator.

SPEED test results:
http://s13.postimage.org/uj18k9j11/Untitled.jpg
http://postimage.org/image/mqaksad1v/

For me, there is NO obvious speed improvement resulting from opening the radio before engine start in the 2a.

[trademe900]

Are you for real?

This guy builds missions, and just because he is apparently good at it, doesn't mean he is any kind of expert in flight-models, far from it, most of the time he'll be in the FMB or scripting.
Even so, its easy to dictate when your shooting up AI on predefined settings which you created, however fighting in RAF planes online in a full realism server is a whole different ball game and it takes skill to do it.

He needs to get back to mission building and stop the childish one-sided propaganda, which is getting quite tiring, its obvious the FM's are badly screwed up.
And if he's so sure they are not, I invite him online to take any RAF plane & I'll take the G.50.

Agree entirely, and it seems this whole radiator drag trick is just a complete troll.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Whether the OP was sincere or not, his suggestions are of no utility. Using them produces the same problems of lack of speed and climb. Any attempt to use +12 boost at 3000 rpm will destroy the engine almost immediately whether the rad is 100% open prior to takeoff or during flight. Any attempt to use the allowable continuous settings also results in short engine life.

So far the best suggestions put forward to maximize the engine life and speed of the British aircraft have been suggested by ATAG_Dutch, (ie. using max. 2650 rpm at 1/2 rad opening at full boost, and 2400 rpm and 1/2 rad for cruising) see thread on this board) but of course, while his suggestions do remove the problems of overheating and engine destruction, they still do not result in the British aircraft achieving their historical top speeds.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Salute

Whether the OP was sincere or not, his suggestions are of no utility. Using them produces the same problems of lack of speed and climb. Any attempt to use +12 boost at 3000 rpm will destroy the engine almost immediately whether the rad is 100% open prior to takeoff or during flight. Any attempt to use the allowable continuous settings also results in short engine life.

So far the best suggestions put forward to maximize the engine life and speed of the British aircraft have been suggested by ATAG_Dutch, (ie. using max. 2650 rpm at 1/2 rad opening at full boost, and 2400 rpm and 1/2 rad for cruising) see thread on this board) but of course, while his suggestions do remove the problems of overheating and engine destruction, they still do not result in the British aircraft achieving their historical top speeds.

+1

An interesting exercise we ran for a short time over on our trial Server #2 was to uncheck the Engine Temperature Management, but leave CEM checked (activated) per normal. We did this to evaluate the effects of radiator drag on overall aircraft performance (vs the same aircraft on the main Server #1 with ETM "on" per usual). Quite an eye opener. (Anyone can do this on their own PC in single player, or setting up their own server, if they choose).

Septic and I were running some tests, he flying an E4 with autopitch selected, myself flying the Spit 1a 100 octane. With ETM off the two fighters were evenly matched at top all-out speed at sea level (E4 - WEP, Spit - 3000 rpms/11 lbs boost). For mile after mile we skimmed the waves, wingtip to wingtip. Neither a/c gaining nor losing. On cue (via Teamspeak), we both hauled back and vertically zoom climbed, both engines still full out. As if in an airshow, the two a/c climbed side by each, then stalled and fell back at precisely the same time.

The 109 had the advantage in the dive -- I couldn't keep up, plus I had to cut throttle to avoid exceeding 420 IAS to avoid losing control services. In a sustained turn the Spitfire outurned the E4, took me approx 2.5 turns to get on Septic's tail. The fighting was exhilarating, the two of us are about equal in skill (yeah, yeah....."You can teach MONKIES to fly better than THAT!" LOL). We didn't shoot our guns so we could prolong the session ("Takka takka takka takka" -- over TS it worked fine. :) )

The downside to ETM turned off is the loss of realism (once it's fixed, that is) and the challenge of maximizing performance and keeping things cool. Add to that the DM in combat is compromised if coolant systems are hit by flak or bullets but doesn't affect the aircraft if ETM is off.

We didn't measure ROC of the two aircraft with ETM switched off, but that can easily be done offline by anyone who so desires. Our focus was on the overheating and excessive radiator drag on the RAF fighters.

Flying a Spitfire with the same sea level speed as the 109 made for some challenging and FUN dogfights, though!

[*Buzzsaw*]

+1

An interesting exercise we ran for a short time over on our trial Server #2 was to uncheck the Engine Temperature Management, but leave CEM checked (activated) per normal. We did this to evaluate the effects of radiator drag on overall aircraft performance (vs the same aircraft on the main Server #1 with ETM "on" per usual). Quite an eye opener. (Anyone can do this on their own PC in single player, or setting up their own server, if they choose).

Septic and I were running some tests, he flying an E4 with autopitch selected, myself flying the Spit 1a 100 octane. With ETM off the two fighters were evenly matched at top all-out speed at sea level (E4 - WEP, Spit - 3000 rpms/11 lbs boost). For mile after mile we skimmed the waves, wingtip to wingtip. Neither a/c gaining nor losing. On cue (via Teamspeak), we both hauled back and vertically zoom climbed, both engines still full out. As if in an airshow, the two a/c climbed side by each, then stalled and fell back at precisely the same time.

The 109 had the advantage in the dive -- I couldn't keep up, plus I had to cut throttle to avoid exceeding 420 IAS to avoid losing control services. In a sustained turn the Spitfire outurned the E4, took me approx 2.5 turns to get on Septic's tail. The fighting was exhilarating, the two of us are about equal in skill (yeah, yeah....."You can teach MONKIES to fly better than THAT!" LOL). We didn't shoot our guns so we could prolong the session ("Takka takka takka takka" -- over TS it worked fine. :) )

The downside to ETM turned off is the loss of realism (once it's fixed, that is) and the challenge of maximizing performance and keeping things cool. Add to that the DM in combat is compromised if coolant systems are hit by flak or bullets but doesn't affect the aircraft if ETM is off.

We didn't measure ROC of the two aircraft with ETM switched off, but that can easily be done offline by anyone who so desires. Our focus was on the overheating and excessive radiator drag on the RAF fighters.

Flying a Spitfire with the same sea level speed as the 109 made for some challenging and FUN dogfights, though!

Salute

Interesting comparison. Sad story this cannot be replicated with using full engine management.

Historically, the Spitfire 100 octane and 109E4 should, to all intents and purposes, be almost identical in speed and climb at sea level up to approx. 15,000ft/5000 meters.

At altitudes over that where the higher boost on the Spitfire cannot be obtained, (over approx. 16,000 ft) the 109 should begin to gain an advantage in top speed and climb.

Turn should be to the Spitfire's advantage, but rollrate at dogfighting speeds, (approx. 200mph/350kph) should see the 109 be roughly twice as good in its lateral performance as can be seen in this test:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif

This would mean the tactic of choice for the 109 in dogfights, would be the scissors. At very high speeds, the rollrate advantage is reversed, with the Spitfire gradually gaining an advantage.

The 109 should show a better dive acceleration, this coupled with the advantage of being able to 'bunt' directly into a dive, instead of having to roll and dive, would allow them to escape most combats where the 109's have a decent amount of altitude under them.

Accurate modelling of the historical aircraft would see the historical tactics being repeated, ie. 109's coming in high where they have a performance advantage, above their bombers, with the Spitfires being scrambled and having to climb to altitude in most instances.

A lot of those who predominantly fly the German side will complain that modelling the historical Spitfire with its equal speed and climb and better turn will provide too much of an advantage to the British side. They are ignoring the fact that Spitfires were only 1/3 of the available Fighter types. 2/3's of the British single seaters were Hurricanes, which were considerably slower and showed a inferior climb to the 109 at all altitudes even when using 100 octane fuel. In addition, the Hurricane had a rollrate slower than the Spitfire, a 109 should be able to scissor extremely effectively with a Hurricane. As well, the Hurricane had a much inferior dive, with slower acceleration than the Spitfire and lower maximum dive speed. Unless a 109 pilot is foolish and ends up low and slow on the deck with an overheating engine, he should be able to exit any fight with a Hurricane at will. The Hurricane should be able to outturn 109's slightly more easily than the Spitfire, depending on the altitude of the combat, over the altitude where +12 boost can be used the Hurricanes should see gradually decreasing turn performance, something which would affect the Spitfires less, since their elliptical wings were particular effective in thinner atmospheres.

Correctly balanced Servers should see players restricted in the numbers of Spitfires which may be selected, (as well as 25% 109E1's present during the earlier phases of the battle, and negligible numbers of E4's prior to late September) thereby putting the majority of those in British aircraft in Hurricanes.

[zapatista]

OK, So I've decided to test this little suggestion from Thomas Voss of Desastersoft:

I flew a spitfire 2a, with 50% fuel.
I've carried out testing at three altitudes >250ft, 5,000ft and 10,000ft.
I tested the airspeed at 2400, 2600 and 2800 RPM at each altitude.
Boost pressure was ALWAYS adjusted to read +5 in each case.
All tests were carried out with 100% open radiator
All speeds are indicated, at straight and level flight.
The ONLY variable was this - one test 1 I opened the radiator before starting the engine. In test 2 I waited until I was nearly airborne before opening the radiator.

SPEED test results:
http://s13.postimage.org/uj18k9j11/Untitled.jpg
http://postimage.org/image/mqaksad1v/

For me, there is NO obvious speed improvement resulting from opening the radio before engine start in the 2a.

hiya Pstyle,
seems pretty conclusive, absolutely no change
thx for comparing it and posting the results

[ATAG_Dutch]

hiya Pstyle,
seems pretty conclusive, absolutely no change
thx for comparing it and posting the results

+1

Sigh..................

(sorry zap, no offence mate! :) )

[klem]

Does anybody fly the A2A Spit on FSX ?, it would be interesting to compare.

I have it. As ATAG_Snapper says they are like two different aircraft. The other one handles beautifully whilst ours seems a bit 'nervous' and more to the point underperforming badly and almost impossible to trim away from its fairly neutral power/rpm settings (around 2200-2400rpm/2-3psi). A2A negative G cutout is way undermodelled (not an issue in a non-combat scenario) and you do have to manage its engine carefully. It overheats more easily than ours if you don't manage it properly but the engine is more forgiving and can be cooled over a period of time (but again you're not fighting in it). It is generally a highly regarded simulation of the Spitfire.

This is not a "criticism of CoD by reference to the A2A Spit", just an answer to your question. The devs are looking at our FMs anyway but if BlackSix wants to delete these "A2A" posts its ok by me.

[Norseman]

Could someone please build an air racing map...!!-?
Now I`m really inspired !
Think about it.. only Spits pls..

-and hurry.. before nxt patch !

:grin:

~S~

[Bounder!]

Salute

Historically, the Spitfire 100 octane and 109E4 should, to all intents and purposes, be almost identical in speed and climb at sea level up to approx. 15,000ft/5000 meters.

At altitudes over that where the higher boost on the Spitfire cannot be obtained, (over approx. 16,000 ft) the 109 should begin to gain an advantage in top speed and climb.



Certainly agree that the Spitfire and 109 top speeds should be very similar, almost everything I've read seems to state that. Not sure about the 109 having a greater top speed at altitude or sustained climb though?

This graph (posted in this thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115&page=10) showing top speed at altitudes ranging from sea level to 35 thousand feet seems to show the Spit having a slight edge on the 109 at altitude:

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s207/atp9697/IMAG0145.jpg

[*Buzzsaw*]

Certainly agree that the Spitfire and 109 top speeds should be very similar, almost everything I've read seems to state that. Not sure about the 109 having a greater top speed at altitude or sustained climb though?

This graph (posted in this thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115&page=10) showing top speed at altitudes ranging from sea level to 35 thousand feet seems to show the Spit having a slight edge on the 109 at altitude:

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s207/atp9697/IMAG0145.jpg

Your chart is for an E3, and secondly, it does not specify boost level for the engine. I do not think it is for an E3 using the potential boost allowable during BoB.

It is also more importantly not an actual German test document, but a chart derived from a couple of secondary sources.

And the Spitfire performance is noted as being 'slightly adjusted' by Alfred Price, based on a couple of assumptions which may or may not be accurate.

I would recommend you study the actual test charts available on this site:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

[Robo.]

Your chart is for an E3, and secondly, it does not specify boost level for the engine.

And the performance difference between E-3 and E-4 was? ;)

[Kurfürst]

Correctly balanced Servers should see players restricted in the numbers of Spitfires which may be selected, (as well as 25% 109E1's present during the earlier phases of the battle, and negligible numbers of E4's prior to late September) thereby putting the majority of those in British aircraft in Hurricanes.

There were more E-4s around by late September than all Spitfire Marks combined...

On 31 August 1940, fighter units (excluding JG 77) reported>

375 E-1s,
125 E-3s,
339 E-4s
32 E-7s on strength,

Most of the E-3s had been already converted to E-4 standard.

By July, one Gruppe (Wing) of JG 26 was equipped with the Bf 109 E-4/N model of improved performance, powered by the new DB 601N engine using 100 octane aviation fuel.

[fruitbat]

Of course its interesting to note still more e1's than e4's at that point in time.

[Kurfürst]

Of course its interesting to note still more e1's than e4's at that point in time.

And..? They only differ armament and arguably the E-1 armament was more practical against fighters. Performance was the same. Ever since the beginning, there seems to be trend that the ration of cannon and machinegun Emils was roughly 1:1.

Some of the photos I have seen hint that the idea may have been that the leader (attacker) flew a cannon armed Emil while he was covered by an E-1 with MGs.

[fruitbat]

And it is just what it is.

there are still many people here who perpetuate the myth that all 109's were cannon armed during BoB, i know you know better.

I imagine that the performance would actually be marginally better for the E1 no? slightly lighter and marginally less drag from the wings i would guess, maybe you know more on this?

Not sure irl I prescribe to the machine gun version being more adequate against fighters, but certainly in game i do, this maybe due to the fact that many of us have thousands of hours more shooting practice in our virtual life's than real pilots during the battle had.

I'm sure you have read 'Spitfire on my tail' and whilst that prescribes to the leaders having cannon armed versions, I very much doubt that that was a planned policy, merely that the leaders got the better equipment with what was there to go around, and from JG to JG the equipment levels varied due to many reasons including politics.

It also shows in Ulrichs case anyway, that once he got a cannon armed 109, his kills went up.

[JtD]

E-1's were maybe a km/h faster and weighed 35 kg less, giving it marginally better climb. In other words, the differences between an E-1 and E-3/4 were considerably smaller than production tolerance, even if I think that in a computer game a relative 1% difference should be somehow modelled.

[fruitbat]

E-1's were maybe a km/h faster and weighed 35 kg less, giving it marginally better climb. In other words, the differences between an E-1 and E-3/4 were considerably smaller than production tolerance, even if I think that in a computer game a relative 1% difference should be somehow modelled.

thanks JtD. I did say marginally, lol!

[TomcatViP]

The prob is that, E1 and E4 does not differ only by the guns. There was also a range of modification implemented at the level of the units. So 35 kg is a difficult assumption that I don't know were you sourced it from.

Does it include only the canon, the canopy, the added armor etc...

I think that devs should concentrate on what is representative of the period. We don't need E7/N, 100oct and what ever. We hve already seen the mess with the Mig3U and alike. No more!

[JtD]

Sorry for being unclear, it's the difference between E-1 and E-3, speeds as tested by Messerschmitt and weight from the manuals. E-4 might be a bit more again, but values would still be inside production tolerances.

[Al Schlageter]

On 31 August 1940, fighter units (excluding JG 77) reported>

375 E-1s,
125 E-3s,
339 E-4s
32 E-7s on strength,

The source for these number is ____________________ .

[Christop55her]

I've seen some amazing flying going on pushing the FM's to their very limit.

http://www.gqth.info/0.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.ymeu.info/test5.jpg