Upcoming Patch FM Changes

[IvanK]

The data supplied was complete and unmodified from the archive what was there was supplied.

The climb data on the Spit II was +9lbs Boost as these are sustained climb values. The Data did not present any +12Lb Boost cutout climb values.

I am not entering the 100Octane debate.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Yes its me. The Source data comes from direct copies of Spitfire,Hurricane (and RAF test data on 109and 110) copied from original files after countless days spent in the UK national archives. The files were copied by photographing each page. All the data was then provided to the team as is. However these are not the sole references used but add to the "data bank"

Thank you IvanK for your work.

[klem]

Thanks Ivank !

Hopefully they looked here for some Spitfire I +12lbs level speed data although its not clear if it carried armor plate:-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Can't wait for the patch now

[pupaxx]

here is the link about performance trials of Spitfire MkII P7280 ivank's chart is referring to..
cheers
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by IvanK

The data supplied was complete and unmodified from the archive what was there was supplied.

The climb data on the Spit II was +9lbs Boost as these are sustained climb values. The Data did not present any +12Lb Boost cutout climb values.

I am not entering the 100Octane debate.

So if for SPitfire MK II +9lbs Boost is for max climbing power ( engine power settings) in incoming beta patch i assume that there will be also emergency power +12 lbs possible to apply?

Cause Merlin XII at 100 Octan fuel had power settings : + 9 lbs at 2850 RPM - max climbing power and +12 lbs at 3000 RPM -emergency power (combat power).

Merlin XII with 87 Octan fuel had power settings: + 7 lbs at 2850 RPM - max climbing and +7 lbs at 3000 RPM - take off power




I hope also at least one type of Spitfire MK I and one of Hurricane MK1 would have 100 0ctan fuel performacne implemented in incoming patch?

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

So if for SPitfire MK II +9lbs Boost is for max climbing power ( engine power settings) in incoming beta patch i assume that there will be also emergency power +12 lbs possible to apply?

Cause Merlin XII at 100 Octan fuel had power settings : + 9 lbs at 2850 RPM - max climbing power and +12 lbs at 3000 RPM -emergency power (combat power).

Merlin XII with 87 Octan fuel had power settings: + 7 lbs at 2850 RPM - max climbing and +7 lbs at 3000 RPM - take off power




I hope also at least one type of Spitfire MK I and one of Hurricane MK1 would have 100 0ctan fuel performacne implemented in incoming patch?

Yes, it does appear that if Ivan's data is used for the MkII Spit then we'll have our 100 octane engine.

[Kurfürst]

The Spit IIA ratings are somewhat unclear. The orginal July 1940 (unamended) engine ratings state that +12 lbs was only cleared for take off purposes, for all other combat purposes +9 was the maximum, even with 100 octane.

I guess +12 was cleared for the Merlin XII at a later stage.

See attachment.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The Spit IIA ratings are somewhat unclear. The orginal July 1940 (unamended) engine ratings state that +12 lbs was only cleared for take off purposes, for all other combat purposes +9 was the maximum, even with 100 octane.

I guess +12 was cleared for the Merlin XII at a later stage.

See attachment.

I see what you mean, but this is certainly not as it seems to be - you're correct with the operational limits, but they don't account for the use of BCC-O.

[Sutts]

I agree that the operational limits are unclear - I have 2 copies of the Mk11a / Mk11b notes - one allows 12 Lb boost in combat, the other restricts it to 9 Lb as Kurfurst points out, except for take off. Strangely they both have July 1940 dates but who knows what could have happened when they were converted to PDF.

Whatever happens, I think we need to see some real consequences should use of emergency boost be abused and exceeded.

For example:

1. Critical engine damage occurring a short random time after the 5 min limit. I really don't want to see the engine blowing each time at exactly 5 mins as this will be abused by players. You really should be made to worry that you could have a critical failure on your hands any time after 5 mins. It will be even better when persistent engine wear is introduced as abuse can then lead to an early failure on a subsequent mission.


2. I believe it was the very high engine temps that caused most damage so it would make sense to see a steady creep in operating temps if max boost is used in combat. This would naturally limit it's use as max temps threaten to be breached. It would also force pilots to watch their temps and pressures as it was in reality - more immersion from my point of view.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Sutts

I agree that the operational limits are unclear - I have 2 copies of the Mk11a / Mk11b notes - one allows 12 Lb boost in combat, the other restricts it to 9 Lb as Kurfurst points out, except for take off. Strangely they both have July 1940 dates but who knows what could have happened when they were converted to PDF.

R.M.3.S. is stating +12lbs. as Combat Power Rating for the Merlin XII - 1280hp/3000rpm/10500ft/+12 lbs.

+12.lbs was only possible with BCC-O engaged anyway as far I know.

Take-off power was stated as 1175hp/3000rpm/+12.5 lbs

Perhaps they considered the BCC-O as maximum power hence CPR in the manual. I am sure the manual deals with the limits of the usage and reporting / justifying it's use in combat. +12lbs @ 3000rpm was maximum strain you could ever put onto that engine. There are anecdotal stories about Spitfires (I don't know if they were Merlin XIIs or IIIs tbh) scrambling to intercept a raid at some important target in Lodnon. 6 took-off, BCC-O used straight away to climb asap. The result was that some had to turn back with failures and all of them needed overhaul I suppose. I'll try to dig that story as I might be wrong with details.

Originally Posted by Sutts

For example:

1. (...)

2. (...)

Agreed completely, that would be great!