yep i was typing too fast, i guess.

if sea level movrs, then sea level moves. The continents do not bob up and down on the sea. Lunar gravity does not move the earth's crust by a significant amount.

Totally irrelevant. :rolleyes:

I'll tell you what is moronic, some guy claiming to be a professional pilot, who said airfield elevations change hourly and the information is taken from METAR's, a QNH is 'not' airfield elevation it is sea level pressure at that station, pilots do 'not' set QNH by adjusting their altimeters to airfield elevation, QNH is given to the pilot either by radio or by means of a pre briefing METAR, all of this has nothing to do with tides, tides are for sailors to worry about, in aviation sea level is a fixed average called 'mean sea level'.
It really isn't much of a surprise doggles is taking Crumpps side of this, it doen't help the LW fantasists much to learn one of their biggest contributors is a complete liar.

I am still not quite sure, in fact I quake at the possibility that these guys are *really* arguing about wheter the dirt is one frigging feet higher or lower...

Very much so. Some people just unable to admit if they happen to be wrong.

I found this discussion interesting though, slightly off topic, but interesting. Funny how you need to spend ages trying to prove something you know already to guys like Crumpp. Good for the readers though as normally you wouldn't be bothered to type these things and I wouldn't be bothered to be looking for it elsewhere. So in a way, thanks very much to RL pilots in here, it's appreciated.

Regarding Spitfire Mk.II and +12lbs - seems to be pretty straighforward issue as there are combat reports from Squadrons using boost override in sorties. Not while taking off obviously, but while trying to get to some German planes. No matter how desperately some local celebrities are trying to find anything to prove that things are not what they are... No one on the so called red side would be happy having unhistorical performances, e.g. boosts higher that really used. I hope we'll have this all modelled one day AND realistic engine overstressing and failures. Please.

You missed the point obviously, and it's hardly surprising that you too are a little nervous at the prospect of having an ally shown up for what they really are, it's amazing how these internet Walts are always 'ex-special forces' but happen to be experts in whatever field the forum is based on, basically these guys are all about is 'I know what I'm talking about, everything I say is gospel and if you disagree you need to either fear or respect me because I used to kill people for a living'

it's insulting to people who genuinely have these backgrounds.

Oh, I am absolutely terrified indeed, I take these issues very seriously.

I mean, what on Earth I would I do, if my secret schemes would be compromised when some madman on the internet calls my trusted ally and long term conspirator buddy something bad? These matters need to be addressed with the gravity and attention they require, as you show in such an exemplary manner.

I guess I am so broken and crushed in spirit now, that I'll just go out, grab a beer with friends and watch England fail tonight. :D :D

OK fair point, I'm genuinely jealous you are still single and can still hit on chicks, how hot the ones you end up with will need evidence ;)

Yeah....something like that.

Yet the first thing you did after 100 octane option has been announced for Mk.I fighters was grabbing the 9+lbs. for Spitfire Mk.II opportunity. Why would you do that? Don't you want all the aircraft (fighters in this case) to represent what they really were during the BoB era? All I can see you doing is fighting for Luftwaffe and against RAF. That being said, do you actually play this sim? ;)

Cancelled the chicks, beer and football won I am afraid. :D But hey dude, you know where I am from, so then you know we absolutely highest quality chicks here. Need proof? These girls are not models but ordinary girls sending in their pictures. DIE OF ENVY, ENGLISHMAN, LOL. :D
http://www.szeretlekmagyarorszag.hu/category/szepsegek/

Sorry for the off. ;)

Out of the many possibilities, have you considered the one that I genuinely believe the Mark II's max boost during BoB was +9...? Because simply that's what their manual say?

For the same reason I also voted for the inclusion of 100 octane in the Il2bugtracker thread, and +12 lbs Spit Is/Hurri Is.

According to Osprey, I do. Seriously, I have been betatester of original Il-2, for the current one I guess my hardware and time does not really qualify, plus I waiting for the patch to fix things and give it a real try and see what comes. It looks promising, both the engine and FM fixes. I have bought the thing when it was released to support Oleg, but I do not have time for a semi-finished product, except for a few quick dogfights.

Online, I haven't been since the old Il-2 times with my Squad.

No worries - Hungarian girls are very pretty indeed. So are ours (Slovakia - pretty similar actually). I live in England and the moment and there are many many beautiful girls in here, too. And I mean BEAUTIFUL mate...

Back to the topic - my concern re. 100 octane fuel for Mk.I fighters is in the Rotol propeller variant, that's at least what has been announced - 100 octane for CSP. I wonder if this is entirely correct, because from what I've known, there were still quite a few de Havilland fighters around during the summer period. I'd say that we need both propellers and 100 octanes for BofB. 87 octanes for anything representing OTUs and some 1939 scanarios. What do you guys think?

Czech girls are better, I settled for a Russian born Lithuanian girl.....nearly 10 years now, I wonder if my Russian genes influenced that, My colleague from Flying for the Coastguard married a Hungarian girl.

You might be wrong though... +9 without BCC-O. What happened if you used boost override in a Mk.II? +12lbs. happened. Was it used? Yes indeed. It does not make sense because if Mk.III has been modified to be able to withstand higher pressures and +12lbs. has been authorised and widely used, the Merlin XII was basically next step of these original modifications + some other things that helped with durability and cooling etc. It was certainly capable to withstand the +12 boost which has been also authorised AND used in real life. +9 for Merlin XII was what was +6.25 for Merlin III.

Honestly appreciated. ;)

I see, I do remember you from Il-2. I was wondering about Cliffs of Dover as I've never seen you flying anywhere. There is nothing wrong with that, I understand your reasons. The thing is although you're trying to help and perhaps to create some balance so the arguments would not become biased on the RAF for example... But you sort of miss the touch with the acual sim reality, in my opinion of course. That's why you probably don't see how ridiculously big and unrealistic the gap between the FMs is at the moment and the sheer frustration of anyone who tries to fly for the RAF. Even the LW guys see there is no fun in it now. It would be okay if that would be what it was during the actual Battle of Britain. But it was not.

Maybe but this would lead to have 3 to 4 mk1 variants instead of 2, so perhaps asked to much when on online maps they will likely put the csp spit anyhow.

You must be very good if you're able to tell the girls from this area (Hungary, Czech Rep. & Slovakia) apart. I can't before they speak up and I am from there.

Lithuania, Latvia and Poland - sure, they look different enough...

I've been to England shortly, and personally I couldn't see a normal looking chick.. there are some increadibly hot exceptions though but I can't see those on streets, only at fashion shows and films. Paki girls on the other hand.. left me breathless!

Never had a Czech girlfriend, but had one from the Párkány(Štúrovo) area and she was a beauty. :) But personally, I am very very biased towards Ukrainian/Russian girls. :)

The good thing about Hungarians girls though is that historically we have been invaded by/received immigrants from all sorts of people, which today leaves us in an enviable variety of gene pool. You can find all types of girls from blonde Nordic beauties along with skinny Slavic girls and of course the good old Hungarian brunettes, as well as some exotic Turkish stock. ;)

True, but it's not really necessary to have a new slot for each and every variant, is it? Commons sense would say 2 slots with 2 different 3d models (Rotol and de Havilland) and choice of 87 / 100 octane in the armament screen. Appropriate FM file would be the used depending of which box is ticked. Mission creator would enable / disable the option for the player. 100 octane was for BofB, 87 for any 1939 scenarios.

I might be wrong though, the Rotol conversion was pretty swift, well known story. But many Spitfires flew with 2-pitch during that era - guessng from pilot's memories and photographs.

I don't know, I find many British women attractive, it's just they sometimes don't dress up as nice as European women and they do shopping in their pyjamas whereby 'our' girls always make sure they look good when they leave the house. My GF is from my country, just for the record, and I like it that way, but I can't ignore all the pretty birds on the streets. Probably depends were you've been, too.

Ahh you don't call them Pakistani people like that, that's very very rude. Some of them are really really pretty, I agree.

Exactly, same here... ;)

Go for it. We are playing tomorrow.

When are Hungary playing their match?

I think it's nice of Kurfurst to show us the websites he likes to frequent, although probably against 1C rules. I don't want to disappoint you K but these girls tend to fake their backgrounds to avoid the most persistent 'fans' :rolleyes: But still if you feel it's all real then you can feel truly proud that your Hungarian chicks aren't satisfied with their local men and solicit themselves over the internet in search of better. :D

Yes, I might be. Thing is though we do not know how the Mk. II engine controls were set up in 1940. The throttle lever is just, a lever giving any kind of boost it is set to give.

How did the Boost cut-out worked on the Mk. II? Was it the original boost cut-out (override for fully manual boost control in case of failure), was it giving +9 or +12?

We know the take off gate gave +12 but it fell of quickly and was basically only good for take off or very, very low altitudes. This should be definietely modelled.

The summer 1940 Mark II manual gives the maximum combat boost as +9. It does not list anything else, like the Mk I manual listing (+12) with the boost cut-out. The later, amended (1941?) Mark II manual gives the maximum combat boost as +7 (+12). This may point to that the throttle was setup to give +7 normal, and (+12) with the BCC-O.

Personally, I think the summer 1940 setup may well gave similar boost, with +7 w/o the cutout and +9 with the BCC-O.


Maybe, but we need solid evidence for that. We do not have it in the moment. On the other hand, it begs the question why the summer 1940 (unamended) spitfire II manual only gives +12 for take off, but does not clear it for normal flight (giving +9 for that without any higher figures in paranthesis).

Anyway, how important is this issue? There were marginal numbers of Mk II in the Battle. One Squadron in the summer, three in September, a couple more by November. Essentially the same numbers as 109E-x/N types, which we do not have modelled yet. ;) 110C-x/Ns are also missing. But the developers need to take priorities, fixing the engine and existing FM is way more important IMHO than adding new planes.

FM is broken all the way around. 109Es were too slow, they have ridiculus stalling, 110s had too low dive limits, they miss Mine shells, 601N powered versions, Spit IIs were too good, then nerfed too bad, now hopefully correct, both Spitfires and probably 109s roll way too well at high speed, radiator drag was missing, 100 octane versions missing on both sides, German bomb sights are broken and so on. I am very doubtful that the FM bugs are biased towards any side, its broken all over the place. I get their frustration, recent FM changes were not kind. But they also need to come to terms with the fact that Blue has the 109s, and its excellent machine which held most of the aces up its sleeve even historically. Speed, firepower, good handling. They capitalize on that well. Sorry to say that, Red pilots were always the more whiney bunch, if you were too back with Il-2 you know that yourself.. and Il-2 history is so full of Red whining for new aircraft.

The real problem of Red side is that they are trying to master dozens of different types and the relevant tactics, and somehow always put their hope in the addition of more powerful aircraft, some of them were really really atypical (Mustang IIIs, 1944 Spit +25s - eh, two Sqns on operational trials IRL). There was whining about adding the P-40 and high hopes were placed that it will squash the 109F. It did not. Same thing with adding the P-47, and then the horror when they realized that 7-ton aircraft don't turn or climb too well. Then extreme hopes put in for the P-51, only to realize six brownings are not the same thing as a pack of 20mms, the plane itself is pretty avarage for climb and turn and that you have to learn capitlize on that its fast. In short, Blue players are bit weary of Red whining for the newest and "bestest" variants, and that Red often wants to have the highest performing variants and none of the also historical worser variants. How much whining have you seen for 100 octane Hurricanes, seriously? All they want is the best one, the 100 octane Spits, and I believe the reasoning behind is all too obvious - everybody knows new Hurris won't change a thing. And yes, I do see need to balance some noisy Red's rather selective offering of evidence. You will not find me knocking heads with IvanK or 41 Banks and there's a reason to that - they do not reach further than what their evidence is actually good for. I can, did and will support any Red suggestion that is underline with evidence. If someone posts some hard evidence that +12 was cleared for combat Spitfire II during BoB, I will change my position right away.

Red's real problem is that Blue side only flew the 109 all that time, and become so familiar with it, that it is operated at maximum efficiency and with deadly results. No new plane addition will make up for that. When +12 lbs Spits will be added, it will be a match for performance, but it won't make up for well developed and perfected tactics and routine. And seriously, anyone who expects the Hurris to be competitive against well flown 109s is kidding himself. Experienced Blue won't go on the deck and turn with you, it will employ team tactics and hit-and-run attacks, where only speed matters, even in maneuvering fights.

While an entertaining little distraction it has been very telling on how the attempt to derail an important issue came down to insulting British women and boasting of their own and for good measure insulting the England football team, Women are wonderfull things the world over, but for us the Brits and for the USA there is a dispropotionate amount of 'porkers' with no personality, it's just lucky for us British men that Eastern european women seem to be quite keen ;)

Back on topic, +12lbs boost was real, evidence of it 'will' surface eventually, I think the 109 'magic' rudder will need some investigation.

And Crumpp.....license and registration please.....Sir!

Oh. Sorry for that then, I did not mean it in a wrong way. ;)

Thankfully we did not make it and so made sure to avoid the emberassment. :D

As pointed out in this post: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=370

The throttle lever at "rated position" (this is the position before/at the gate) gave +9 boost.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1339257626
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1339257633

Banks, what is the date of this manual? I see it has been amended so its contents are at a later date than the original. When did this amendment came into force?

Secondly, then how did the boost override work on the Mk II in 1940?

Did it overode automatic boost control and the pilot had to adjust boos manually, according to altitude?

It's from the same manual where the unamended engine limitations page from you is taken, i.e. the "unamended" version (though as can be seen there is an amendment included). If you have a really unamended version maybe you can show the corresponding pages.

Of course, the cut-out did disable the boost control, thus the pilot had to adjust boost with altitude. The only question that remains is if it maximum boost was limited (like modified Merlin III) or not (like unmodified Merlin III).

Also note this post: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=365

It shows that there were two different "All out" boost limits for Merlin 45, one regular rating (+9) and one for emergency (+12, later +16).

I just want to remind you that I was on your side in this case until there the combat reports were discovered that show the use of emergency boost/cut-out. I don't see a definite proof so far that the emergency boost was +12, however it's the only plausible value, everything below or above would be very very unlikely.

I agree. I suppose Banks or someone with more technical evidence would answer your questions. What I wrote before was just an assumption based on what I know from Merlin engine history, mainly 'The Merlin in perspective: the combat years.' I agree that evidence should be a base for any changes in game. I only have the ameded Mk.II Pilot's notes, but knowing a2a FSX sim for example, with their amount of knoweledge and research, they probably got it right and they have +12lbs modelled. We'll see.

Also agreed on the N 601 engines.


Yeah no doubt about it.

I would say it's pretty much even on both sides. That's of my experience with Il-2 from day 1 pretty much. I do remember those never ending stories like .50 cal effectivity etc etc. But same goes for blue side, too. People are people. Same goes for what you describe below - every side wants the best for themselves and the worse for the other side. Funny. I am not biased, I fly just anything and I see the same stuff everywhere.

Never had a problem fighting the 109s myself. I agree it's down to tactics and teamwork. The problem at the moment is, and that's where the frustration is coming from, that the current beta patch FMs are too wrong. It's getting better though, let's see what the new patch will bring us.

I know you didn't, I was not offended obviously, that was just FYI. I didn't know that either before I got here.

I have reviewed the paper and the manual again.

My conclusion, based on the July 1940 Spitfire II manual is that the references to emergency boost simply refer to +9 lbs, which was the all out limit to be used "in emergency". See attached manual. Therefore, early references from August 1940 to emergency boost refer to +9 lbs / 3000 rpm.

Controlled +12 lbs could be obtained by pushing through the gate for take off purposes only, and would fall off quickly with altitude. Boost graphs indicate it would be back to +9 by 3-4000 feet.

The Boost-cut out emergency control is simply an override for the automatic boost control. It should be noted that references to use of boost cut out do not appear until November 1940. Pilot can then control boost manually, and should be careful not to overstep the limitation of +9 lbs. He may choose to go over +9, as the Boost-cut out emergency control system technically permits it.

If doing so, great engine wear and risk of engine failure is risked. The officially sanctioned use of +12 with a limitation of 3 minutes or 1000 feet, whichever was shorter, was there for a reason.

He also has to manually adjust boost according for changes in altitude (at low altitude, extreme over-boost may occur as the throttle fully forward would result in about +17 lbs boost, and likely immediate destruction of the engine). Decrease of altitude will result in boost increase, increase in altitude will result in boost decrease. I am looking forward to Spitfire II pilots trying to get this right in a fight... ;)

In short, its somewhat similar to manual overrevving practice on the DB 601 on 109/110.

I did check, A.L.3 was issued August 1940.

I love the whining from Kurfurst about allied pilots whining. This is a guy who makes complaint about every little detail which promotes blue and demotes red. We've been providing information on a major missing feature and he's done his damn hardest to prevent it from happening - just him and Crumpp mind you, the 100 octane bug is supported by red and blue alike but these two? Nah, it's all the others that are whining.........

Kurfurst, try and whine correctly though please. The bug 174 which you protest is not about the Spitfire, the 'best' type as you call it, but based on the Merlin engines regardless of airframe. Why do we have to keep reminding you of these little features you keep ignoring?