Official Fulqrum Publishing forum
Page 5 of 33 « First 34 5 6715 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)
-   -   Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=31450)

Osprey 04-24-2012 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAF51/155_TonyR (Post 414134)
Im flying the Spit 1a very often in this period and, if i well understand the graph, i never was able to reach 310 mph=500 kmh in level flight. At most i can reach 260 mph. Probably im making something wrong.
Calculate for True Air Speed from your Indicated Air Speed. They are very different.

fruitbat 04-24-2012 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEE (Post 414203)
I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.
Going to be a bit of a problem when the enemies bombers are flying at @4000m though.

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

Osprey 04-24-2012 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 414209)
I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.
Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SEE (Post 414203)
I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.

I am pretty sure it is correct. Remember that these are modelled from data supplied from RAE that was using 87 octane fuel. The 100 octane (12lbs) modell is considerably faster and not modelled (refer to my bug link

The test supplied was for propellers I believe, lots of different data on the trialled props.

fruitbat 04-24-2012 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414210)
Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)
done a while back;)

smink1701 04-24-2012 04:09 PM
Looking good.

topgum 04-24-2012 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414189)
..... Many CoD 109 pilots are pleased by this, but others have voiced concern at what they themselves perceive to be a deterioration in gameplay in terms of challenging opposition.

So be it.
The most amazing thing to me in any combatsim is to figure out the performance-( and allroundskills) of EACH fightermodel. But the gap in Low altitudes between red and blue fighters will be too big to get this kind of fun!
:(

SEE 04-24-2012 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414210)
Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)
I am pretty sure it is correct. Remember that these are modelled from data supplied from RAE that was using 87 octane fuel. The 100 octane (12lbs) modell is considerably faster and not modelled (refer to my bug link

The test supplied was for propellers I believe, lots of different data on the trialled props.
What I see is that the current Mk1a is closer to the test graph up to 6000m but the patch will impose an unecessary reduction in the speed - that is what I don't understand.

So why make it slower when it is more or less correct to 6000m and the problem was the dip above 6000m (which will be corrected) or am i missing something here?

bw_wolverine 04-24-2012 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 414209)
Going to be a bit of a problem when the enemies bombers are flying at @4000m though.

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.
I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

ATAG_Dutch 04-24-2012 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414202)
I am staying calm ;) because you have the flight model data for the 87 octane (6.25lbs) model of the RAF fighters which are not Battle of Britain fighters
It doesn't even match the 87 octane test figs for N3171, let alone 100 octane (yes, I know about the lack of armour and IFF).

320mph @ 10,000ft, which is what the 'real life' curve shows (Boscombe Down, March 1940), against 490kph @ 3000m (1C Maddox Games), .

Even with my crappy maths doing the conversion 490kph is about 305mph @ 9842ft, and the patch is worse below 18,000ft than the current Ia.

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414222)
I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.
Agree.

Which means when "Ju88's spotted over Oye Plage" we'll need to fly 180 degrees AWAY from the target in order to intercept! LOL

(Just kidding.........I hope! ;) )


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:57 PM.
Page 5 of 33 « First 34 5 6715 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.