Wow, thanks Ivan, you're a star. This is just the thing the community needs.

So climb rates look pretty accurate to me (except the 109) until you get to higher levels. Personally, as the devs are being quite open about the high altitude performance drop off, I'm happy to wait for the improvements in the sequel. It's just great to know:

1. they are using official data
2. they are aware of the current limitations
3. they are working hard to correct and improve things

Thanks again for coming forward Ivan, a little info can go a long way.

Cheers

I wonder what data what used for speed? Expecially for 109 E (beacause now is too slow) . And if +12 lbs emergency boost (100 Octan fuel) was modeled in British fighters?

S!

By looking at that graph the real Spitfire Mk.II climbs pretty much the same as RL Bf109E-4. And also by looking the graph Bf109E-4 beats both Hurricane and Spitfire Mk.I in climb. Thanks for posting IvanK!

+ 1. Great job Ivan!

It should be noted that Spitfire N3171 in the graph is not using 12lb boost/100 octane fuel.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

Strange. How come the Spitfire Ia outclimbs the E4 and Rotol? What are you doing to manage this?

I am not going to get in a tit for tat ref the charts or the tests depicted on them. In all cases they represent the climb performance achieved in game using the Climb profile (Power/speed) as quoted in the source documents themselves.

In all cases RADs full open (since at present there is no radiator drag in COD). These climbs are all straight out standard climbs NOT max power (i.e. without WEP/Boostcutout).

In the course of these climbs it was also discovered that both the Spitfire and Hurricane VSI's were overreading to the tune of 800fpm for the Hurricane and 1000fpm for the Spitfires. This determined by Alt versus elapsed time.... so dont rely on the VSI's at present to give you a true indication of climb rate. Altitude versus time is the only true measure.

The Spit Ia is with CSP controlling at 3000RPM.
The E4 is in AUTO controlling at 2350RPM (No advantage doing it in manual btw)

The radiator drag point is curious. How did you find it out? BTW I am very sorry to hear that since Il-2 also did a very poor job at modelling radiator drag/cooling effiency with different flap settings. I was hoping COD would be an improvement over it.

Seriously? How can even the VSI be faulty? Is there some kind of instrument error margin modelled, and this got bugged? Because otherwise I'd suppose its a simple Z axis change readout for the engine..

In MP, I cannot match the climb rate of the Hurri Rotol, Spit Mk2 with a Spit MK1a so I need help understanding those graphs. I have to ask for my fellow flyers in those ac to ease off the throttle and whatever the indicated VSI errors - they get to altitude quicker - help needed as I am reading the graphs incorrectly!

BTW, I m not complaining and appreciate the FM work being done.

A lot of us came to the conclusion that there was no drag penalty for open Rads/cockpit canopy so will this be corrected along with the Spit Mk1's Boost Cut off that has no measurable effect?

Did you supply 12lb boost performance data? If not, why not, as the fighter bases on the CloD map should all have 100 octane fuel.