Aircraft peformances, is this joke ?

[jf1981]

Hi,

I've been testing today the performance of our actually modelled Spitfire IIa, and compared to the figures of the book written by Jerffrey Quill, a test pilot throughout the WWII, who kindly tells us his story, and we can find also graphics and key figures.

Not only is out aircraft, in CoD, not modelled accurately, but also the vertical speed dial indicator is about useless as too inaccurate.

I have measured, in a constant speed climb (160 mph IAS) and full climb 2850 rpm, full throttle boost 6 1/4 (no boost cutout).

The climb dial shows a value higher than the calculated vs, but its error depends upon altitude, it varies 20% error at sea level to more at high altitude.

The expected performances of the Spitfire MK I were by the book 285 mph at SL and 360 mph at 17000 ft.
In the game, we have 268 mph at SL and 320 mph at 17000 ft (IAS 243 and TAS 320 I estimated a standard temperature).

That's a false vertical speed indication (I expect the altimeter hopefully works fine)
and that's about 17 mph at SL and 40 mph at rated altitude less than the MK I
as performed by IL2's Mark IIa which was equipped with about 15% more HP.

Finally, to answer to a question from Blacksix about accuracy of the Mig performance due to the fact that it has much less performances that German aircrafts, question related to balance of the forces
I would like to answer, first please let us have aircraft accurately modelled in terms of performance, and we'll let you know later on if this is a real issue online when we effectively into action.

Edit
Performances expected on Spit I (Merlin II / Merlin III engine) and Spit II (Merlin XII) are by those above figures with +6 psi boost.
The 'military power' +12 psi enables more than respectiveky 1030 and 1175 bhp and hence are would allow an extra speed over 285 SL and 360 @ 17000ft.