There is a lot of interesting data and facts regards the octane rating and I have enjoyed reading through them, But, the simple truth is that a Rotol Spit Mk1a, as modelled, is slower than a Rotol Hurricane and the 6Ilbs of Boost does sweet FA to boot! - That's about as 'Black and White' as it gets - there is no 'grey' area in that simple observation!

Even if not completely perfect, relative performance of all the fighters is the essential fix for me (for the time being anyway....except having 6Ibs of boost working is better than no Boost)!

+1 signed. I believe, along with a more smooth running game (if possible) updates and fixes to the planes on both sides of BoB, where required, are a necessity.

If we are still debating (I mean hearing each other arguments) I wld say that Spit FM need to be fixed... Then the matter of 100 or no 100 won't be such a question. [/SradfordUpAvon_Mode=OFF]

As MG already said, that FM's and DM's would be fixed/revised with the next patch, i'd like to say, any discussion of FM/DM before that is a pure waste of time

Possibly. I haven't looked into it but perhaps the 'undermodelling' of the Spitfires is because they are modelled with 87 Octane?

Hmm, Spitfires being undermodelled. Interesting.

Klem, may I ask you to try something.

Pick a Spitfire II.
Bank it 90 degrees.
Pull back the stick fully forward.

Come back here and share your observations about it. :D

How does one pull back the stick fully forward?

"Spitfires" as a whole are not undermodeled. I'll agree that the Spitfire Mk.1 is underperforming, but not because of "87 octane".

This is what I was trying to get at earlier in this thread. People misunderstand what the octane number actually measures.

:rolleyes: I think you know what he means.

Frankly I am not sure about them. Do they (Mark Is, they seem to be modelled with 87 octane boost levels) not meet specs for a 87 octane one? Climb too slow? Or..?