Yeah, but I'm moving across the country in a week, so I don't really have the time at the moment :cool:

Can anyone else see those brains working from here!! lol

Well if everyone is complaining that all the aircraft are 25-30 mph off in terms of level speed, it is probably the environment.

First of all, it will be the summer of 1940. The density altitude is much greater than a standard day on a warm summer day.

Almost all of the performance data quoted by folks defending their favorite airplane is performance on a standard day.

At a higher density altitude, you will see a reduction in Indicated Airspeeds and climb rates. That is normal atmospheric effects.

It does not mean the game is modeled wrong.

If Maddox games really models things correctly, it will be very funny to listen to people. Players will be screaming when they hit their boost override and increase rpm over maximum continuous or 1.42ata, or whatever high power/high rpm system their game shape has only to watch the airplane slow down on that hot summer day!

:grin:

what are the equivalent EAS numbers for the 109? similar?

Regrettably, that is not the problem at all.

Camber's post earlier in this thread highlights the actual cause for concern by the virtual RAF pilots:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...4&postcount=56

Regarding G modelling and Structural strength etc, I don't believe its modelled in CLOD .... it should be.

Look, I don't want to piss people off or alienate them.

That post does not show an issue at all. He is comparing apples and oranges by using the FTH on a standard day with the performance on a non-standard day.

FTH at 5000 meter is the FTH at pressure altitude or a STANDARD DAY.

What I mean by that is on a 95 F day, at 29.45inHg, and a 67 F dew point spread, when you are at 5000 Meters True altitude the airplane is at 6992 Meters Density altitude.

In otherwords, when you are standing at sea level on that day, it is the exact same as being at almost 1000 meters in the air on a standard day.

Soooooo, why does the 109 E4 match the STANDARD DAY data at 5000 meters, but the Spitfire Ia and IIa are woefully short at 16,500 ft and 13,500 ft respectively?

Under what data are you looking at? What data are you using for these aircraft.

Are you looking at Indicated airspeed, TAS,..????

By my calculations, the Hurricane for example is within 2% of its data for a standard day. Whether that is optimistic or pessimestic depends on the weight of the aircraft in CLoD.

From the link I supplied you, these are actual in-sim trials conducted by Camber first on the 109 E4, then on the Spitfire Mark Ia, then on the Spitfire Mark IIa. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you -- this is a simple copy & paste from that link:

EDIT: It occurred to me that perhaps a clarification is in order here. What you may not have understood is that a number of us, including Camber below, have been checking the actual in-simulation performance of the aircraft in question to the charts posted by 1C. Under the test conditions in the simulation, the 109 E4 closely matched the STANDARD DAY performance charts (as they should), but the actual in-simulation trials of the Spitfire Ia and the Spitfire IIa did not! These two aircraft performed -- in the sim -- well under the mark that Luthier says they should.

Default weights of each aircraft with fuel at 100% were used.

I can speak from personal online experience on the ATAG Server that many of the air combats that take place are close run things. Even a 10 kmh difference in speed between two aircraft in combat can mean the difference between drawing enough lead or not, or holding a climb just long enough to tag the opposing player -- or not. Each player in this sim continually refines their ACM and engine management techniques to eke out just 1 more mph at the crucial moment. Those who have flown with me or against me know of what I speak. So these numbers below -- taken from that link I had provided you earlier, are not just numbers on a graph to us. We look at them as likely meaning the difference between success or failure of our online endeavours. Hence the passion and hence the scrutiny. Many of us on the Red (virtual RAF) side know there is something very, very wrong with what's happening on this sim. The numbers that Camber has posted, which mirror those that others, including myself, have tested bear out our misgivings.

So, hopefully in a new light, I present again Camber's in-simulation findings:

Camber said:

Quote:

I calculate TAS as 2% greater than IAS per 1000ft altitude using this link (http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html), there may be a more accurate calculation out there.

I just did some altitude speed tests offline (beta patch), they are OK for 109 but a bit horrifying for the RAF as they are below the B6 patch curves. I tested for full Throttle height (above which boost declines at full throttle). My assumption was that top TAS should be around FTH.

109E4 (prop pitch control on)

FTH: 5000m (boost has dropped a bit to 1.32ata, declines rapidly above 5000m)

425kmh IAS@5000m = 569kmh TAS, exactly right for Messerchmitt official average spec.

Spit Ia

FTH = 16500 ft
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 minutes. Just enough time to get stable 245mph IAS (with 3000rpm couldn't get this alt without engine death)

245mph IAS@16500ft = 323mph TAS = 520 kmh TAS

Oh dear, this is under even B6 plot speed (560kmh TAS at 16500ft).

Spit IIa

FTH = 13500 ft (?!)
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 mins

260mph IAS@13500 = 328mph TAS = 528 kmh TAS

I really hope I making some kind of testing error here. Tried online and got same values. I wouldn't feel confident taking any Spit against 109s at alt with these values.

camber
Last edited by camber; Today at 03:17 AM.