just what will keep the 109s from diving to deck with tail between their legs and make a run for it every time a non rookie Spit's on their six?? they do that already!!! with even slower Spits on deck, might as well open them a freeway...

now that the Spits IIa are getting less power, either they make an appearance as a fair choice on all servers, or i'd be guessing what blues would be afraid about; it's very easy to have solutions with the best performing plane, even when they come down to the famous run away most times..

If you have reliable data please update this issue on Spit Ia and create new one for Hurricane. It will be much easier to post just one-two links for luthier when he brings the patch.

BTW. Someone mentioned that above graphs are calculated and not direct measurement results for lower altitudes. Is there any better data?

Do the simple exercise of making a paper graph of the Hurricane I, using Kwiatek's charts and B6's data (in game now) ... the actual game has +60 km/h more at 5000 m than Kwiatek's 12 lbs Hurricane I, and +105 kmh at 6000 m, with a comfortable +25 kmh at 4000 m.

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ... ;-)

On the other hand I agree that the 12 lbs boost / 100 octane fuel must be modeled, of course with a limitation on overheating and engine life as in RL, to correct the Hurricane I performance below 3000 m which looks excessively penalized, IF KWIATEK CHARTS ARE ACCURATE


Cheers!
Ins

If this performance issue is true, then of course it should be corrected.

As for "no red pilot complained" - I've seen comments from red AND blue pilots asking for "all" A/C to be closer to historical.

Reading in that thread it seems that the problem wasn't the Hurricane, it was the lack of speed in the 109. Which, I might add, seems to be being addressed! Lucky blue pilot!

I read several people in that thread (not all of them Red pilots!) agreeing that the Hurricane was more or less accurate. So I'm not sure why you are claiming that thread as evidence that the Hurricane has always been understood as too fast in the game.

I don't really care if it is or isn't. I just want it to be accurate so that the majority agree that is accurate.

My point here is that there doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of non-biased opinions here, for or against ANY plane. I'm sure everyone posts with the idea that "MY info is accurate and unbiased. THAT guy is being a fanboy." But looking back, it seems that our 'unbiased' opinions seem to change strangely in correllation the patch FM changes.

Whatever. Like I said. I'm giving up trying to get any FM adjustments. I'm gonna fly with what I've been given. It's a nice aircraft combat sim. Battle of Britain sim, it ain't.

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

It's the #3 ranked bug. Apply pressure and we have every chance of a result - to me it's not a luxury, it's what was in the battle and everything else is wrong. Faith brother ;)

Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!