Hmm, my test results are fast compared to others on this forum...as a professional scientist this worries me :) Obviously on-line "test piloting" is not particularly precise, but SL speeds should be reasonably comparable I think with care.

I can get on ATAG and fly for hours without CTD post patch as long as I stay away from other planes :( so I retested on-line and offline for the Spit II only.

To summarise:

* significant and unpredictable speed differences between the tool tip (roundimg to 10mph doesn't help), the cockpit gauge and the no-cockpit gauge.
* No real difference between online and offline speeds for me, and Spit II offline speeds consistent with last test
* full to 1/2 radiator makes a small difference (about 10mph)
* canopy closed/open makes no difference

Again, ball centred, wave skimming, time allowed to settle.

Online speeds are
(tool tip reading)/(approx cockpit gauge to 5mph)

1/2 rad +6.25psi 3000rpm 270/275
full rad +6.25psi 3000rpm 260/265
1/2 rad +9psi 2800rpm 290/290

Offline speeds we can also add the no cockpit gauge
(tool tip reading)/(approx cockpit gauge to 5mph)/(no cockpit gauge)

1/2 rad +6.25psi 3000rpm 260/270/270
1/2 rad +9psi 2800rpm 280/280/293

I think the new patch is trying to make me feel better, it CTDs so fast so it lets me get there faster than others :grin:

Thanks for posting this, Camber.

Your SL data for the IIa squares with what I got for both online and offline ie 290 mph IAS +/- 2 mph. Where my data began to diverge (offline vs online) is when I climbed to 5,000 feet and 10,000 feet. The online Spit IIa begins to seriously decline in IAS while the offline Spit IIa holds a fairly steady IAS right up to 10,000 feet (and possibly higher -- did not test beyond 10K).

I can't fathom why the two flight models for the two same aircraft should be so different at emergency combat settings ie. 2800 at full overboost. (The needle goes off scale on the boost gauge, so I can't tell if it's +9 lbs or +12 lbs -- or something else for that matter).

I haven't used the no-cockpit gauges but why they woulld read differently is a real worry, surely these are the same gauges or are the gauges in the cockpit set in the 3D model whilst the no cockpit gauges are 'made' separately. In that case either the gauge plates could be calibrated differently or perhaps the needle rotation formulae are different.

Regarding the on line versus offline difference it could be that different atmospheric conditions are modelled, e.g. perhaps one is a 'standard day' and the other not or perhaps both are not and are different from eachother. Then again, the test environment used by 1C could be different from both.

http://stoenworks.com/Tutorials/Unde...0airspeed.html
That standard is:
1. at sea level
2. standard day (temperature, humidity)
3. a barometric setting of 29.92 inches of pressure

If any of these criteria are off then the indicated airspeed will be different than the actual airspeed of the aircraft.

http://www.elsevierdirect.com/compan...-d/default.htm
IAS = 'indicated airspeed'- this is the speed displayed on the aircraft instruments. As such it is a function of height (static pressure) and forward momentum (dynamic pressure). The value displayed on the instrument will be affected by local atmospheric conditions and by errors from the installation of the sensors on the aircraft.

I've added the 1940 documented data from spitfireperformance.com charts to your jpg so we can see how all the IAS's are off if its supposed to be a standard day.

However, note that the IAS's given for Spitfire IIa in the spitfireperformance chart we have been referring to is 'raw' so I have deducted the Positional Error Compensation and the Comp. figutres to give the true IAS's. I suspect this is what os modelled in CoD, I doubt if they modelled in a Positional Error or Comp. error.

I for my part as an almost exclusive 109 Pilot must say that i am having nice challenges against spits now after the patch. Seemingly the Spit IIa isnt as uber as it was before the patch. I cannot understand why everyone always complains until their plane is absolutely uber modeled so skill doesnt count anymore. I can understand if someone moans because his side/plane got nerfed to hell and back. But that is seemingly not the case with this patch. The 109 does roll like a tank since the newest patch but it at the same time feels much more authentic this way if you take into consideration the airspeed at wich this rolls take place. It just feels right.
I cannot tell about the Spitfire or hurricane. Only that good pilots make good fights now and not just the plane.

Winger

"Only that good pilots make good fights now and not just the plane."

That is all well and good to an extent. The boys in our JG26 LW arm are now saying that things are way too easy and no longer a challenge because the109 has lost it's stall characteristics. He is now able to out-turn Spitfires easily, no longer needs to be careful about approach because if he gets involved he can escape anyway.

I did a quick test on the Hurricane Rotol and Couldn't get more than 230mph ASi out of it, trimmed, level flight, at various RPm (best 2650). According to this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I should get 261mph with the Rotol which is 290mph TAS. Essentially the Hurricane is 50-60mph too slow. When I looked at the graphs B6 provided too the 109 is faster than RL up to 6km too, so we have an inaccuracy of around 80mph!!

Also, I've found problems in climb. Maybe it's me but the Spitfire Ia ROC seems to fall off badly above 16kft. I can only seem to manage about 1000fpm constantly when I should be able to manage 2400fpm @ 15kft and 1,840fpm @ 20kft.
I may have a bad airspeed or RPM for the task but I was using 2600rpm and full power rad open trying to maintain 160mph ASI. Temperatures looked dangerously high, I found 140-150 seemed to give better climb.

This is too inaccurate as a test, I would like some opinion on it though.

I fought a Spit yesterday and dove away. The guy followed me and i wasnt able to get distance on him. He seemingly then lost sight of me and broke off. Wich was my luck. I think people should Fly the crates for a while untily they know the strengths and weaknesses and then after maybe 1-2 weeks start complaining. But not already at day 1.

Winger

EDIT: But i surely understand red jockeys if the get upset fast. I would too. Did so already. Until i then realized it was me and the situation and not the plane:)

I attacked Wellingtons at 3.5 km height on ATAG on my 109-E1, and suddenly found 3 or 4 Spits and Hurries buzzing around. After a bit of DF I dove for life, but at least one if not 2 Spits managed to stay on my tail down to < 1 km.
They should have hit some controls because trying to shake them again I went into an unrecoverable spin and crashed into the channel.

That's not to deny the FM mistakes of red fighters, which MUST be corrected asap by the devs, but to hint that the Bf-109 is not that invicible machine.

Cheers!

I haven't managed to find a fight yet since the patch, I get up to 18kft where the Spitfire is meant to be stronger but nobody is ever there. It sucks.

I am going by what our JG26 boys have said, DavidRed has had a couple of 'Ace in a Sortie' flights already - that's just turkey shooting. Maybe some are turkeys but they aren't all turkeys. Like I say, I don't know personally so will have to experience it. I fly the Hurricane and it is 60mph slower than it should be (30mph @ 6.25lbs), which is massive for the slowest fighter anyway. I did a quick turn test with one of our 109 guys and he could stay with me easily in sustained 180mph turn - I should have been able to tail him in 2 circuits like that (though I appreciate that's not how to fly a 109!)

Your link don't work.

The RL tests measure the 109's 1.32 ata power. It's the "no WEP" line. :-| This graph is slower 35 km/h (on the deck) than it should.

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachmen...3&d=1334842797
- pilot's manual
- game with WEP
- game no WEP

I can't follow you calculations, how do you get 80 mph difference...?