Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=32020)

I flew the spit2 all out (+8lbs) at 2650 rpm across the channel, had a dogfight and flew and back, without engine trouble

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 425076)

I flew the spit2 all out (+8lbs) at 2650 rpm across the channel, had a dogfight and flew and back, without engine trouble

Should be possible to fly up to 30 minutes at + 9lbs and 2850 RPM. Actually it is not possible to fly even at +6 1/2 lbs at 2850 RPMs for 30 minutes.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1335381803

What btw about the performance of the other planes, the 109s, the G50, the 110 and the bombers? How far off mark are they? (I am loosing track ... )

If it was done at Pas de Calais per most of the online servers, this can be accomplished in under 30 minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 424114)

Yea you start again with prototypes and folder data not for serial planes. Serial 109 E test proff different results - 467- 475 km/h at 1.3 Ata (990 PS). Nothing new to me and no sense to disccussion these again.

BTW

109 T-2 with Db601N in May 1941 reached at 1.35 Ata 2600 RPM - 1175 PS ( maximum emergency power) 490 km/h at the deck.

So i think for 109 E-3/4 at 1.4-1.45 Ata ( 1- minut emergency power) it is possible 490-500 km/h at the deck for a while ( less then 1 minut) nothing more.

For comparsion serial Spitfire MK1 at +12 lbs could do 505 km/h at the deck but for longer time ( 5- minutes).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReconNZ (Post 424178)

Hi Manu

Yeah the reason i raised the original post in the first place was because this 109 actually started just lower than me. i came onto him and we had an initial first pass, at which point he began to climb, he climbed away from me, then turned and engaged. After 2 or 3 repeats of this, he was much higher than me,.

Now I'm a pretty experienced spit pilot, i did my best to stay with him, but the 109 just climbs so much better than the spit - it's ridiculous.

Being lower does not means it had less energy than you. And if it was coming from a dive and had much more speed than you. Energy = speed + altitude. I bet you just not avalied the energy states good enough. After 2 or 3 pass he was much higher because problaby he puts you in defensive obligating you to turn a lot when he preserves its energy using less AoA and coming inside your turn for a snap shot. Next time rec a track.

Problaby you were a victim of the famous rope a dope manouver. the good 109 pilots use it a lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWyrOSB6uw

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1335381803

SOURCE? Did you write it yourself or is it a book? By whom?

"Should be possible to fly up to 30 minutes at + 9lbs and 2850 RPM. Actually it is not possible to fly even at +6 1/2 lbs at 2850 RPMs for 30 minutes."

Well sort of. 30 mins is a general limit. As to be able to actually do it is subject to Oil temp and Coolant limits staying within limits.

It seems the real issue in CLOD with the Merlins is keeping Oil temp below 95C. If you do this then generally there is not an issue. Go over 85C and the windscreen gets oily quickly.

The Source Document (AP 1565B) is RAF Pilots notes for the Spitfire II

LMAO, It is very realistic to use a climb rating for cruising.

:grin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tettie (Post 424051)

Is there any proof of that? This thread is all about opinions but no proof, from both sides. Any video's, accurate testing reports or anything?

109 turn better than the spit with low speed, below 370km/hour.
According to Closterman the pilots of spit who have to try are not to return to say it ;)
2mn44 speak french.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8h...partie2_webcam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 425164)

LMAO, It is very realistic to use a climb rating for cruising.

:grin:

It is valid according to "AP 1732b Instructors' Handbook of Advanced FlyingTraining, 1st Edition" to use climb power for other "conditions of flight in which really high power is required".