Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[Winger]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Well the spits can sure keep up with my E4 and they still can turn like a biplane so I am going to call BS on this.

This is called height advantage you would be able to do exactly the same thing to him if you had more height than him .

+1

All in all the 109 is totally inferior to the IIa with the exception of slightly higher topspeed. Make the IIa faster and we have the same BS we had when fighting 109 against a IIa before the patch.

Winger

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Well the spits can sure keep up with my E4 and they still can turn like a biplane so I am going to call BS on this.

This is called height advantage you would be able to do exactly the same thing to him if you had more height than him .

Yeah but in truth Krupi you are a very poor pilot.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Yeah but in truth Krupi you are a very poor pilot.

lol

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

lol

lol i'm only joshing mate

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Well the spits can sure keep up with my E4
.

You're flying it wrong then.
Spit 2 max sea level is just on 280mph.

you can easily get that and some out of the 109E4.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Spitfire MK II had the most accurate performacne (speed, climb) but it is only modeled for 87 octan fuel - + 9lbs when should be modeled at 100 Octan fuel and +12 lbs emergency.

Spitfire Mark II was not cleared for +12 lbs boost during the Battle of Britain, apart for takeoff. For combat flying at all but the lowest altitudes, +9 lbs was allowed, with 100 octane fuel.

So the current +9 lbs performance is correct, regardless of fuel type.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Spitfire Mark II was not cleared for +12 lbs boost during the Battle of Britain, apart for takeoff. For combat flying at all but the lowest altitudes, +9 lbs was allowed, with 100 octane fuel.

So the current +9 lbs performance is correct, regardless of fuel type.

Hey Kurfürst quick question obviously you have a lot of knowledge on the 109, so my question is if the spits get the 100 octane fuel do you believe we should get the Me 109 E4/N and C-2 fuel?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Hey Kurfürst quick question obviously you have a lot of knowledge on the 109, so my question is if the spits get the 100 octane fuel do you believe we should get the Me 109 E4/N and C-2 fuel?

Hi Krupi,


The E-4/N was present in the Battle in similar small numbers with units as the Mark II Spitfire, so if there's a Spitfire II, I think there should be an E-4/N too.

I've collected the evidence here, where you can turn the devs attention to it too by voting:
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200

IMHO the devs should model an E-7/N, which would be re-usable for any 1941 scenario, like North Africa or the Moscow map. Performance wise its identical anyway to the E-4/N.

However I am far more concerned about the 110s lacking 100 octane fuel, when about half of their were using it since the start of the Battle, so its just outright silly that we do not have them. Its like not having Hurricanes or something.

Even more importantly, 100 octane and the DB 601N engine associated with it gave a huge boost to 110 performance, the normal DB 601A variant with 87 octane fuel had a max. speed of around 520 km/h, as fast as the Hurricane, but the one with 100 octane and DB 601N should do around 550 km/h practically as fast as Spits. It would really make the 110 an interesting alternative to fly as a fighter.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Hi Krupi,


The E-4/N was present in the Battle in similar small numbers with units as the Mark II Spitfire, so if there's a Spitfire II, I think there should be an E-4/N too.

I've collected the evidence here, where you can turn the devs attention to it too by voting:
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200

IMHO the devs should model an E-7/N, which would be re-usable for any 1941 scenario, like North Africa or the Moscow map. Performance wise its identical anyway to the E-4/N.

However I am far more concerned about the 110s lacking 100 octane fuel, when about half of their were using it since the start of the Battle, so its just outright silly that we do not have them. Its like not having Hurricanes or something.

Even more importantly, 100 octane and the DB 601N engine associated with it gave a huge boost to 110 performance, the normal DB 601A variant with 87 octane fuel had a max. speed of around 520 km/h, as fast as the Hurricane, but the one with 100 octane and DB 601N should do around 550 km/h practically as fast as Spits. It would really make the 110 an interesting alternative to fly as a fighter.

That's interesting I had the same remark few days ago: the Bf-110 C-7 with the DB601N is too slow in game, as it does only 420-430 km/h at s.l. against some 550 km/h I've found in the net. Kwiatek provided some tables, RL for C-1 / C-3 and interpolated for other types, but IMO the interpolation wasn't good. I believe that the 110 C-7 speed must be revised by the devs.

Cheers!

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Spitfire Mark II was not cleared for +12 lbs boost during the Battle of Britain, apart for takeoff. For combat flying at all but the lowest altitudes, +9 lbs was allowed, with 100 octane fuel.

So the current +9 lbs performance is correct, regardless of fuel type.

Not exacly correct beacuse there is not possible to apply +12 lbs in Clod SPit II even only at take off up to 1000 ft (300m) or 3 minutes rating like manual clamied. So still not accurate even for 100 Octan fuel modeling.