Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by CWMV

....... be a little less zealous and let the fact speak for themselves.

as in any other exchange where factual and accurate information is presented in a normal way, i am (and have been) happy to respond to any other poster with an exchange of information in a civilized fashion, and the interpretation and relevant meaning can then be debated in a reasonable manner

when however some have been repeatedly shown to be dishonest and to present deliberately misleading information to push their own one sided agenda, and they are doing so yet again in this thread on a topic that is at the heart of this product being a "simulator" (and most here are very concerned about), dont ask me to bring flowers

[41Sqn_Banks]

Will be interesting to see how the Spitfire performs below 3000m.

Some notes about the Bf 109 performance:



Anyone else noticed that the "reference graph" of the Bf 109 are factory/manual data? They were not achieved during the actual flight test because the Bf 109 in the test was under-performing.

The "reference graph" of the Spitfire is from a actual flight test, ironically again by a under-performing aircraft (speed dropped from 2800 RPM to 3000 RPM).

In addition WEP of the Bf 109 was only allowed (possible?) for take-off and up to 1-1.5km.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Some notes about the Bf 109 performance:



Anyone else noticed that the "reference graph" of the Bf 109 are factory/manual data? They were not achieved during the actual flight test because the Bf 109 in the test was under-performing.

The "reference graph" of the Spitfire is from a actual flight test, ironically again by a under-performing aircraft (speed dropped from 2800 RPM to 3000 RPM).

In addition WEP of the Bf 109 was only allowed (possible?) for take-off and up to 1-1.5km.

For comparison, the actual flight test (note the two lines, the bold one is the speed measured with the engine slightly down on power by about 50-60 PS, the thinner line is the measured performance re-calculated for nominal engine output guaranteed by engine manufacturer)

This has been achieved with 1.33/1.35 ata, which is our firewalled throttle setting in the game, without resorting to the 1-min WEP.



Condition of the airframe :

'The surface was painted after the serial production standard. The engine cowling was still rough, exhaust manifolds (DB-type, made at BFW) were lacking top cover.

2 Cowl- and wing-MGs were installed.
Antenna wire.
Undercarriage retracted, tailwheel out.
For air intake, see the reports drawings.

Radiator cooler flaps were 1/4 open. Coolant temperature observed as constant 90 degrees Celsius.
Oil cooler flaps were closed. Oil temperature observed as 62/82 degrees Celsius.'

IMHO the oil/coolant temperatures are also interesting. Coolant seems to boil rather too quickly in the sim.

The following paper is the official type specification for the Bf 109E. Manufacturer guaranteed these specs within +/- 5 % tolerance.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

judging your outburst it seems you need every single thing that would give an I-WIN button over the German planes and psuhing that agenda ............... Really does not help it

wrong

Originally Posted by zapatista

i dont care if it is blue, red, green or black, what i am asking for is that the figures used to simulate aircraft behavior in CoD are openly provided (like they were in the il2 compare series), and that the correct historical strength/weakness of each aircraft is correctly represented so we can use historically accurate maneuvers and tactics.

the example i gave is for the spitfire, which currently have some significant problems in this regard, and has just been threatened to be neutered even further. there might be (? are) probably some similar issues with some of the blue planes, i have no idea. my CoD install runs very poorly on my mid end pc, so i mostly so far have only limited experience with the spitfire

the whole point is to have the individual planes be able to reproduce their historical weak/strong point, so that no matter what side we fly for we can SIMULATE as close as possible the encounter with our opponent, and can execute appropriate combat maneuvers. that is where the joy lies in a ww2 combat sim, it is why most of us are here ! if one plane rolled faster, let it do so, if another could dive at higher speed before structural failure, let it do so.....etc, that is what we are trying to replicate and simulate

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

Slam the facts on the table and the devs figure the rest. Not a single "thread hundred+ pages of foaming about an agenda" will help.

for me, and many other that have bought the game, it simply hasnt up-till now functioned well enough to be able to allow full comparisons on each plane performance and a direct comparison to its historical competitive opponent (eg 109 climb rate vs spit, or roll rate etc). what has however been obvious is that both the hurricane and spitfire have not been modeled with 100 octane fuel as they should be, giving for ex the spitfire a 15% speed performance cut, WITH NO SIGN THE DEVELOPERS ARE ABOUT TO EVEN LOOK AT THE ISSUE.

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

And even the game would simulate every single plane down to last rivet there would be someone to whine because they do not get same performance for some reason

taking a valid argument (lack of 100 octane) to a absurd extreme and compare it to some trivial cosmetic issue is silly and meaningless

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

So after all it is the pilot not the machine

and that is exactly the type of irrelevant comment that makes it harder for normal posters to have a productive discussion on most technical topics. obviously you'd want to first have the instruments correctly represented and rightly modeled, and only after that make any comments about their use.

[Kurfürst]

It's always interesting to compare the actual sources with the way they are 'represented' on Mike William's website. Often text is 'rephrased' and relevant parts go 'missing'.

Originally Posted by zapatista

its like a perpetual ground hog day here

extensive information has been provided on this issue this from various sources in the last year in this forum, it is CONCLUSIVE AND BEYOND ANY DOUBT that hurricanes and spitfires had 100% octane fuel available, and just by your own quoted figures that would give them at least a 14% speed disadvantage

to quote but a few sources

The actual text in this source goes as:

'By the time war broke out, the available stocks of aviation fuel had risen to 153,000 tons of 100-octane and 323,000 tons of other grades (mostly 87-octane).35 The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year.36 The available stock of 100-octane fuel at this point was about 220,000 tons. Actual use of the fuel began after 18 May 1940, when the fighter stations selected for the changeover had completed their deliveries of 100-octane and had consumed their existing stocks of 87-octane. While this was immediately before the intensive air combat associated with the Dunkirk evacuation, where Fighter Command units first directly engaged the Luftwaffe, this can only be regarded as a fortunate coincidence which was contingent upon much earlier decisions to establish, store and distribute sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel.37

and

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". (ref 35) The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. (ref 36)

Note the very different phrasing used in the original paper.

It does not say that "Spitfire and Hurricane units had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

It says: "satisfaction was expressed that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the neccesary 100 octane fuel".



I will let the dear readers draw their own conclusions.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel.

Don't even go there Barbi

[Flanker35M]

S!

Zapatista. It is still the man behind the stick pushing the plane to it's limits. Not everyone is capable for any reason(insert here) to fly a plane to the documented numbers no matter how. That is a fact. If you really want a game with plane speeds set in stone then try Aces High. Not a single plane goes a notch faster than documented values, nor climbs or turns better. All is hardcoded. Because AH and CoD are GAMES and there will always be complaint/debate/whinery on them as they are just a representation of something, not the real deal. Not a single game models systems EXACTLY as they work in real life as there are too many variables included. We get an average or estimate only that can be handled by our hardware.

You say 100oct gives 15% more speed. Looking at curves yes it does at 12lbs power setting, but this is not the 100% time setting you use. How much does the speed increase at NORMAL parameters, the real 100% power setting from 87oct for example? Spitfire at 6,25lbs on 100 or 87oct vs Bf109E at WEP or 1.31ata? Should be clear to distinguish emergency/overboost from normal parameters that can be used at all times, not only for a limited time. By all means please make the game historically accurate within it's inevitable constraits of being a game, but do not expect down to last digit accuracy.

If we can get something within let's say 5-15km/h I am more than happy as you can lose the same speed with inproper trim or power/mixture/whatever setting. What is more important that the FM itself is good enough to being able to handle more complex things in a reasonably resource friendly way. I remember Oleg saying at beginning of CoD announcements: You want more fidelity on things. Sure you will get that but do not expect it to be easy on the hardware. Remember that? So I think devs are having a hard time tweaking this game to be both playable and accurate enough. I think you can agree on that. This is not the copy/paste FM original IL-2 had

So let's just hope the patch addresses right things and the rest we can test and report for further tweaking. Until then we should at least try refrain from mud sling contests I apologize for jumping the gun.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I will let the dear readers draw their own conclusions.

The interesting thing, is that you have never said what your definition of Units Concerned is.

My belief is that its the fighter units that had not already been converted as we know that a lot had already been converted with use starting in February as supported by the first combat reports and station reports.
We know that Fighter Units in France were using it by May, we know the units in Norway were using it. We know that before May the method of role out changes from using the 87 Octane in the station tanks and replacing it with 100 octane to actively taking it from the stations and replacing it. It also supports the reference to restocking as mentioned in the minutes. That I believe supports the view that Units Concerned where those that hadn't already converted

I know and understand that you disagree with this but you have never said what you believe 'Units Concerned' to be. Is it the 25% of fighter command as per Pips, is it the 16 Squadrons as believed by Pips or is it something else?

Why after May is there no mention of any further role out of 100 Octane at all, anywhere, ever.
If the theory of a reduced number of squadrons is true then when were the rest converted, or were they?

Your evidence depends on a view of one document and twisiting it to your point, not looking at the big picture and the other evidence that supports a view.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by CWMV

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument.........................I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Glider

The interesting thing, is that you have never said what your definition of Units Concerned is

We need the notes of meeting six.
The agenda item from meeting 7 is following up an issue identified in meeting six, item two.