do not be flying low!
if you are flying low, do not turn!
if you turn low, do not turn slowly!
if you turn low, slowly, do not be surprised!
;)

Are you crazy? Did you count how many years (in old IL-2) till the Spits FM was adjusted? It had to be an external team (TD) to do it, cause MG, over the years, were only interested in porking 109's. :-P

Beware TomcatVIP, what your saying is going to be taboo even in a late stage of development of this simulation... :rolleyes:

Yes, all the time. Zero experience required - just center the Revi. :)

He, he, so you do centre the Revi after all.... ;)

and fly outside gunsight mode with the Revi centered.

And all the other poor sods without 6DOF will get stuck in their fate :(




PS. or can I do that without 6DOF as well?

Pretty much all Spitfires & Hurricanes were running on 100 octane fuel with +12 psi war emergency power available during the battle. This is extensively documented.

All Spitfires and Hurricanes had boost control cutouts until later in the war when gated thottles began to appear.

You can get into an argument about how much boost was developed by operating the cutout; but at sea level it was never less than +12 (early Merlins prior to the +12 mods would actually deliver about +17 with the cutout operated, much to the detriment of the engine given that prior to +12 mods they were running on 87 octane).

Very few Merlin XXs took part in the Battle of Britain.

It's possible that they might only have been cleared to +9 in FS gear in the very early days. I haven't investigated this because I've never been especially interested in the early production Hurricane II; it's perhaps analogous to getting deeply involved in the performance of the Bf-109F0 in the same time period.

However, it seems extremely unlikely that the Merlin XX would not have been cleared to at least a +12 combat rating in MS gear at entry into service because in MS gear it's turning the 10.25" supercharger at 8.1516 times crankshaft rpm. This is lower than the Merlin III (8.588 ) or XII (9.089) and would therefore produce a lower charge temperature.

The Merlin in Perspective credits the XX with a +14 combat rating in MS gear and a +16 rating in FS gear, with the takeoff boost being +12.

So really you don't have much of a leg to stand on unless you want to take the view that 100 octane fuel was some kind of collective hallucination by everybody involved...

The most likely explanation for the +9 rating is either a typographical error, or simply the use of a non-combat rating for whatever test you've got that figure from.

This, of course, is a debate about reality. Matters are complicated by the fact that, at least at present, the sim has quite a strange FM which seems to have some important problems, not least of which is erroneous engine indications for all the Spitfires & Hurricanes.

The Spitfire II, when last I tested it, has optimistic +12 performance but questionable full throttle heights and incorrect boost indications, and therefore almost certainly other problems.

The Spitfire I seems to have some kind of hybrid 87 octane performance, but again I'm not really sure what's going on because the boost indications are actually wrong for that as well.

At the moment, I don't think you can really say that the Spitfire is too good or too bad, because the testing that I've done suggests that it's just plane wrong in a sufficiently large number of particulars that it's almost pointless to get into that kind of debate.

In any case, it takes two to tango, and although I'm no expert on the 109, I have absolutely no reason to believe that it's been modelled perfectly either.

I think that the solution is to wait until the sim stabilises a bit, perhaps after the US release, and then set about a rigorous test programme to actually get to the bottom of what's going on.

Of course, even if we get kinematic performance of all the aeroplanes to closely match test data, that's just the start; we've also got to deal with the reliability and cooling difficulties associated with running at high power, because otherwise everybody will be screaming along in war emergency power the whole time, which might well have "balance" implications, in as much as some aeroplanes would probably gain more from this unrealistic performance capability than others...

If I recall correctly: middle mouse button + right mouse button gives you additional 2 DOF. Move head to right and leave it there. Should work with panning, but I am not sure about snap views.

ViP

1. I am referring to the XX as it top off the III perf. . The XX is a well known referenced eng with plenty of raw data available and introduced latter in the war as an improved eng. Draw your own conclusion but I doubt pilot will have been happy to see their eng changed for the "less powerful" XX when they were asked to fly across the channel to bring the fight to the enmy.

So as you say that "very few XX took part in BoB" you are right on what I am pointing out

2. we hve started from a 6.5lb with an emergency boost of 12lb on a 87 oct and we were discussing abt a 100oct at 12lb vs what I think is a Merlin 100oct topped a 9 (my Merlin argumentation based on the RR sources you know pretty well and based on Qualorific assumption (the amount of heat generated).
Now if I read you well we shld hve a 17lb 100oct ? Humm will I hev to fear reading in the upcoming weeks about the Jet eng being available during BoB (see spitperf.com and blablabla) ? ;)

3. You are mixing your argumentation with a lot of data that many young reader can't understand and that hve no meaning here. Just let make it clears MS gear refer to the charger's impeler de-multiplication (the speed at witch it turn related to the main crankshaft) that had to be kept bellow a certain speed for the efficiency of the overall boosting process. There is no link with the SHAP but only with the fighter speed and the alt of this perf. giving that the supercharger was designed for fighters on the base of procurement policy (by the way I read that the twin speed supercharger was patented by Farman and hev a hard time figuring in witch Farman's plane he wanted this installed :rolleyes:). Pls don't smoke the debate. Logic is at the reach of everyone (pls make the V hand sign reading this).

4.you alrdy stated about installed eng power that match only what I have here as an eng not fitted with a supercharger (the 1.3k+HP data) - maybe shld you look at your references.

By the way ~S! and thx to forgive me for my bad English grammar & spelling :oops:


@MC
Yeah I am sure am taking the risk being half read with only our poor 109 and hurri being stuck with what I feel looks like more realistic flight-model.

However I am sure that 1c won't hve so heavily worked the FM regarding Il2 if they didn't pay much interest in this. Hence I am full of expectation :grin:

Nice too read you here. lking frwd to see you in CoD's skies :)

Actually, this was discussed many times already. Sure there's extensive documentation of 100 octane use, which perfectly warrants that we have 100 octane variants of Spitfires & Hurricanes in the sim.

However, the claim that all of them were running on the fuel is quite simply baseless and there's no evidence of this, and it can be considered a bit wishful. On the contrary, there's convincing evidence found in archives detailed fuel use and decisions that the proccess of conversion begun in the spring of 1940 only (preceeded by various trials), and much of the force was still flying on 87 octane and lower engine power during the battle, until toward the end of 1940.

Post of the year IMHO. Thx ! :-P

Once again Kurfurst continues his proud tradition of providing one sided disinformation, with no facts to back up his case.

This issue has been gone over many times and on many boards, it has been written about, published etc.

And the conclusions are clear. RAF Fighter Command had 100 octane fuel in plentiful supply at all of its major 10, 11, and 12 Group fields. (and these fields provided the supply for their satellite fields)

The best debate on this issue occurred on the WWII Aircraft forum which has very high standards of proof required. The discussion was led by 'Glider', real name Gavin Bailey, who is published on the subject of high octane fuel use by the Allies in WWII. His article "The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain" was published by THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, a well respected historical journal whose material is subject to critical scrutiny by the best of English historians.

Article here:

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

The debate on the WWII Aircraft forum can be found in two threads. If you are seriously interested in understanding the facts, then take the time to read both threads in their entirety.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html

Kurfurst was present there, and added his usual disinformation, refused to provide references and was banned from the forum.

For Kurfurst to continue to put forward his disinformation here, despite all the other occasions where that disinformation has been discredited is just another example of his lack of objectivity.

For CLIFFS OF DOVER to have an accurate set of aircraft models, it should have the following:

Hurricane I (two speed prop, +6 boost 87 octane)
Hurricane I (two speed prop, +12 boost 100 octane)

Hurricane I (constant speed prop, +12 boost)

Spitfire I (two speed prop, +6 boost 87 octane)
Spitfire IA (constant speed prop, +12 boost 100 octane)

Spitfire IIA (constant speed prop, +12 boost 100 octane)

It is not good enough to have only a Spitfire II with +12 boost performance. Historically Spitfire IIA's only equipped 3 Squadrons during the battle, most Spitfires were the I model, running +12 boost.

Hurricanes must have a +12 boost version, including the two speed prop version, since Hurricanes were converted later than the Spitfires to constant speed, and there were quite a number of two speed prop versions in use in July and August running +12 boost.

The +6 boost versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane are required for 1939 and January to April 1940 scenarios.