SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[jf1981]

Hi,

I recently noticed that in the Spit, we can un-lock the throttle and make available higher boost than rated.

- Why does'nt it affect Spit 1 ?
- Why can we run constantly at max boost (2650 rev per sec) without any issue with the engine ?

TX

[Continu0]

some call it a feature, others a bug.

You have to wait for the next patch and hope it is fixed.

[SEE]

Boost doesn't function on Mk1 and Mk1a. A few claim it does but I reckon it's a placebo effect. I recall a post where the Boost figure was extracted from the FM and it adds 0.002 sq/in = zilch!

[jf1981]

Quote "Another important difference between the Bf109E and the Spitfire Mk.IA lay in the supercharger design. The early Merlin engines were equipped with gear-driven single-speed, single-stage units. The supercharger had to be throttles back at low altitude to avoid over-boosting the engine. As altitude increased, more and more of the supercharger capability was used and engine horsepower continued to increase until critical altitude was reached, after which power fell off rapidly"

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...s-Spitfire-MkI

[Faustnik]

The biggest issue in the sim is radiators have no damage effect.

Hopefully that a lot of issues hill be fixed in the patch.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by jf1981

Quote "Another important difference between the Bf109E and the Spitfire Mk.IA lay in the supercharger design. The early Merlin engines were equipped with gear-driven single-speed, single-stage units. The supercharger had to be throttles back at low altitude to avoid over-boosting the engine. As altitude increased, more and more of the supercharger capability was used and engine horsepower continued to increase until critical altitude was reached, after which power fell off rapidly"

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...s-Spitfire-MkI

This is wrong. Early Spitfire I were equipped with a fixed datum and later Spitfire I were equipped with a variable datum type boost control. Both limited the boost to +6.25 and therefore prevented over-boosting. +6.25 and 2600 PRM is "Climb power" which is allowed for 30 minutes.

Initially the boost control cut-out simply disabled the boost control to allow any boost up to around +17 at low level. Though the use of higher boost than +6.25 was only allowed when 100 octane fuel was used. (This is stated in a 1938 manual btw.!)

In 1940 when 100 octane fuel became available for operational squadrons the boost control cut-out was modified to disable the boost control but still limit the boost to +12 which was then allowed as emergency power for 5 minutes.

Reference: AP 1590B Merlin II and III Aero-Engines (October 1938, reprint October 1939).

[Basha]

As i have read elsewhere about the "Boost" the game should give Spits 100 octane fuel and 12lbs boost to be historically correct but has n't, will the next patch sort this issue ?

I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

If - what I personally believe to be likely - there had been Spits that flew with 100 octane fuel and others not it should be obvious that we never can achieve the same mix of variants in the simulation (online at least). So what should be done?

We should think about what is desirable for us as simmers as the whole community. I do not have the answer to that but would like to ask following questions:

- should we implement the 100 octane spit types as default even if it is quite probable that not all had this feature?

- Should we procede then also in the same manner with all the other planes in the game that is to go for the high performance variant of it even if we do not know in which number they've seen action?

- If we had the numbers which should be the threshold to decide that the default plane should be the better performing one?

(I presume that nobody here would really support the application of a certain logic in a one-sided manner that is only go for the highest performance variant for one particular side)

These questions are not rhetoric. I think we should ask ourselves this because I think it would be a fundamental decision that would be taken by the devs.

[Kurfürst]

[QUOTE=41Sqn_Stormcrow;375412]I think we need to apply some common sense here. 100 octane was apparently used but there are serious doubts that it was used in each squadron and each Spit. It seems there is no data available that proofe that all Spits flew with 100 octane fuel.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

We should think about what is desirable for us as simmers as the whole community. I do not have the answer to that but would like to ask following questions:

- should we implement the 100 octane spit types as default even if it is quite probable that not all had this feature?

I think the answer is definietely yes. Server hosts and mission builders can decide their take on the level of availability of the fuel.

- Should we procede then also in the same manner with all the other planes in the game that is to go for the high performance variant of it even if we do not know in which number they've seen action?

- If we had the numbers which should be the threshold to decide that the default plane should be the better performing one?

(I presume that nobody here would really support the application of a certain logic in a one-sided manner that is only go for the highest performance variant for one particular side)

These questions are not rhetoric. I think we should ask ourselves this because I think it would be a fundamental decision that would be taken by the devs.

I think the answer to these question is also a definiete yes, otherwise it would be quite clear that some fanboys are just craving for the "bestest" versions of each plane for their side, while trying to deny the other side from the same.

I for one would consider for example Bf 110C / 601N, ie. C3 types a neccessary addition (since about half the Zestorer units were flying these during the battle, its a plane that was important but not represented yet), and as for a C3 109 probably the Bf 109E-7/N would be a good choice. Its the first mass produced 601N variant, would be absolutely useful for later (Afrika, Med, Balkans, Barbarossa) maps, and it could represent well the earliest examples, since performance was the same.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Agreed.

Yes, why would a Spitfire in the Shetlands need 100 octane fuel.

I think the answer is definietely yes. Server hosts and mission builders can decide their take on the level of availability of the fuel.

If the a/c is based in 11 Group, it used 100 octane fuel.

see bold text