SoWC:BoB Multisquad Campaign Starting

[klem]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

There has been talk of replacing the SpitIa with the SpitII however Ive asked for the max speed and climb graphs of the - SpitIa & Spit IIa in game and the SpitIa in real life, however no one yet has cme up with the goods!? So I cannot simply act on a whim.

Can anyone provide this?

Farber, with respect I don't think you can be tied to historical marks of Spitfire because we do not have historical Spitfire MkI or MkII performance (on several levels). 1C have not published charts for RAF a/c performance since the Patch+mini patch but I can show you how the pre-patch CoD Spitfire Ia compared with RL in the attached. The Orange/yellow line (taken from 1Cs own chart, also attached) is the pre-patch Spitfire MkI versus the RL data for the Spitfire I and 109s. It was pathetically undermodelled.

All the latest patch has done is:-
"Spitfire Mk.I
Fixed the top speed dip above 18,000 ft."
see http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...49&postcount=1
So it's still pathetically undermodelled.

and they neutered the overmodelled (?) Spitfire MkII:
"Spitfire Mk.II
The aircraft's speed performance was too good at all altitudes, sometimes 60 mph better than the real thing."
(same link)

I have not done any tests on the MkII since the patch but we have been flying it exclusively since the patch and it is now unquestionably below the 109 performance so you have nothing to fear. My gut feeling is that it may now be something more like a Spitfire MkI or MkII running on 87 Octane fuel. The Spitfire MkII actually ran on 100 octane with the Merlin XII not 87 octane and would give a normal max boost of +9lbs and therefore more power than +6lbs but our MkII doesn't, it only gives ~6lbs. It seems to be modelled with 87 Octane fuel and so without the +9lbs boost. I believe its performance if it had used 87 Octane would have been little different to the MkI, the 100 octane simply allowed higher boost pressures to be used which is what gave the higher performance, not the simple fact that it was 100 octane. Similarly the maximum MkI performance with 100 Octane would have been similar to the MkII with 100 octane as they both allowed the same 12lbs short term boost. A lot is made of the difference between the Merlin III and the Merlin XII but in performance terms I don't think they were much different. The XII was structurally stronger and so was able to routinely use a higher normal max boost (9lbs with 100 octane) than the Merlin III (6.25lbs) which is why it could routinely outperformed the MkI.

If you want a meaningful combat scenario I think you should use the Spitfire MkIIa which we currently have in COD to represent Spitfire MkIa's running on 87 Octane. We know that in the BoB both front line Marks actually used 100 Octane and short term overboost (12lbs) giving short term low-medium altitude advantage but we can't get round that just now.

The COD Spitfire MkI is heavily porked. IMHO the CoD MkII seems to get closer to the real MkI than the CoD MkI but is still no match for a properly flown 109.

I hope no-one will drag up all the endless arguments about MkI/MkII, 87/100 octane, CoD/RL. The above is my belief and I won't argue any of those points in here.