hey Biggs, can you confirm something for me re fuel mix in the spit.

it seems to only have 2 positions correct?

i can't get it to run smooth at 18,500ft guessing its pilot error on my part, any clues?????

also, de Havilland vs Rotol, both on 87 octane fuel, appendix B and C.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...1/File0017.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...1/File0018.jpg

Yeah its either full rich or full lean.

thats what i thought.

now, why can i not get it to run smooth on either at 18,000ft, any idea what i'm doing wrong?

Are you applying the pitot probe position errors to get CAS vs IAS? The charts for the Mark 2 are on page 20 of http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

Could be the source of your perceived lack of performance.

Not sure, but that wouldnt explain why the mkI and mkIa have different top speeds.

The funny thing is the mkI with the 2 pitch should top out a little fast than the mkIIa... MkI should be 364TAS whereas the mkIIa should only make 354...

The main advantage of the mkii is the added hp and constant speed unit. But they only add in climb rate and not top speed

As of right now:
spit mkI - 260 IAS
spit mkIa - 220 IAS
spit mkIIa - 280 IAS

they should all be at least 280 IAS :(

...omg are you already going so anal?!?! Why don't you lucky sods enjoy what you have and which some of us still can't play instead of wasting time looking for all these data?! :rolleyes:

I love the tecnical info. :grin:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com :cool:

You guys are nuts! Have fun crunching the numbers though, if that's what floats yer skiff.

either way, all the RAF planes performance is down on what it should be below 16,500ft.

where's the 100 octane fuel....

Incorrect Boost indications and Boost Cut out mechanisation was been brought up before release. The developers are aware of it.