Spit IIa

[Whiski]

Originally Posted by jojovtx

There is your answer. Move on to new ground, this horse has suffered enough.

May have been beaten to death but still not proven to be over modeled. Nor have the 109's been proven to be under modeled. Have they been tested using specs gained from a well known sources with results to back either claim?


Whiskey

[310_cibule]

Blue guys, I am just teasing you Of course the Spit IIA is overmodelled by all means (überflugzeug) 'cause we would had no chance else. And Bf-109 is undermodelled (thanks God, well done luthier).

But it is a challenge for you, isn't it? You can beat reds flying much worse planes any time (or shall we switch to gladiators)?

[310_cibule]

Originally Posted by Whiski

May have been beaten to death but still not proven to be over modeled. Nor have the 109's been proven to be under modeled. Have they been tested using specs gained from a well known sources with results to back either claim?
Whiskey

It was. By the Blues

[Hellbender]

Question that arises in that context for me: Did the historical Spit IIa had a better climbing rate than the 109 E-4 ? Can´t find any proper info on that in wiki. It just says that the IIa had a better climb rate than the Mk I but was it better in the end than the 109 concernign climbing rate ??

[Redroach]

Quite simple: Many, too many people in these forums think of themselves as a unique snowflake and are completely convinced that they have something to contribute or to prove that the rest of the world seems to conspire on to keep it secret. Thus, non-existent issues will be taken up and defended, and promoted, even if contradicted repeatedly - (objective) truth is of no concern to those people.
Its something like an OCD, really.

see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

[310_cibule]

Originally Posted by Redroach

Quite simple: Many, too many people in these forums think of themselves as a unique snowflake and are completely convinced that they have something to contribute or to prove that the rest of the world seems to conspire on to keep it secret. Thus, non-existent issues will be taken up and defended, and promoted, even if contradicted repeatedly - (objective) truth is of no concern to those people.
Its something like an OCD, really.

see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

Absolutely!

[jf1981]

Not sure which engine the Mark IIa in the available servers are fitted with but there's no sign of 4 kft/min in the website, but in the game you can get to such vertical speed.
I was expecting about 3 kft/min, not sure which is the realistic one for this Mark.
It climbs very fast at 170 mph.

Yesterday on Atag server I had a hurri on my tail which pursued me over the whole channel flying low (so not a hurri with energy advantage). I could not loose it in my 109 even though I was at its ingame max speed of something between 450-460 kph (at least my extensive offline tests yielded this as the implemented max speed for the 109 whatever type). Sorry, but this is definitely not historic right now.

But to my knowledge they will anyhow overhaul the FM completely so we simply have to wait with what they come up with in the future and then see again.

I just want historic performance. Old IL2 was not that bad - at least it got the overall tendencies right.

[Hellbender]

Yeah, I realized that too that the Hurricane Rotol ahs almost the same climbing rate, dive speed and max speed at sea level as the 109. Also I accelerates as fast as the 109 from my observations in the Rotol. However, the turning rate is only slightly better than the 109 meaning that the King of turning is still the spitfire.

[Ze-Jamz]

I think the Hurri and 109 situation makes the problem more noticeable in the FM's wether it be the 109 to slow or the rotol to fast