Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
The V15a figures depicted in the William's graph are showing the aircraft down on power. As per the report the aircraft engine was down on power (by 45 PS), and the results were corrected to the nominal engine outputs. With the corrected output, speeds were 498 km/h (309 mph) on the deck and 574 km/h at 4800 m (356 mph at 15750 feet). See:
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html
6 1/2 lbs at 3000 rpm was 5 minute power, not 30 min on the Spitfire. 6 1/2 at 3000 lbs was a "climb" power but only with the rpm reduced to 2800.
This one is more realistics, with some of the 'accidentally omitted' added. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1336899153 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwiatek
Unfortunately yes - only sea level result:
Hurricane MK 1 Rotol
238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!
So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!
There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts
Spitfire MK1a
255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!
So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.
No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.
Spitfire MK II
268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!
No emergency take off power +12 lbs included.
So actually with present FM and performacne of planes there is no sense to flying Hurricane MK1 and Spitfire MK1 against 109 casue their performacne is way off comparing to RL data even for only 87 octan fuel not mention absense of 100 Octan fuel performacne.
|
Could you please add above data to appropriate bugtracker issues.