Spitfire makes only 300 mph?

I fly the Spit 2a frequently and did some tests. With max boost without cut out and max rpm I get about 290- mph (about 6kft) and almost 300 mph with all out. Radiators fully open as to avoid water overheating.

10 mph win for all out? That's quite little I'd say ...

[ICDP]

I just checked again and the MkII does only show 8lbs boost according to the no cockpit guages. It does however get 311-315 MPH at sea level, so it is getting 100 octane 12+Lbs boost SL speeds.

The MkI is woefully underperforming right now, 260MPH at sea level.

The Me109 is also getting way less speed than it could in reality at SL. I can get 450kph, this is 40-50kph too slow.

It seems that the poor performance is not just limited to the graphics engine. In all honesty the fact that people are getting stutters and poor FPS has deflected away from the fact that there is a lot more wrong with CoD. People are only just starting to notice the other serious issues.

It is a good sim, it just needs a lot of work... to be continued.

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I fly the Spit 2a frequently and did some tests. With max boost without cut out and max rpm I get about 290- mph (about 6kft) and almost 300 mph with all out. Radiators fully open as to avoid water overheating.

10 mph win for all out? That's quite little I'd say ...

Make sure to go to no cockpit view for a much more accurate reading. The little info bar on the IAS inside the cockpit only reads in increments of 10. So 315 will still read 310 for example.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

the Mk Is are with two pitch props and 87 octane. Good choice IMHO.

lol, would have to seriously disagree with this, one of them yes but both is stupid imo, since the mkI was the mainstay of the battle and theres so much evidence of lots (note not all) of them on 100 octane fuel, which even you have to admit.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

lol, would have to seriously disagree with this, one of them yes but both is stupid imo, since the mkI was the mainstay of the battle and theres so much evidence of lots (note not all) of them on 100 octane fuel, which even you have to admit.

You are right (posting from an iPhone was pain.. ). There should be be a 2-pitch version, and a CSP with armor, both 87 octane. The Mk. II could then be used as a stand in for Mk. Is with 100 octane as well. Of course a third Mark I with 100 octane and CSP would be great as well, but IMHO redundant as its the same thing really as the current Mk. II performance wise.

I was just testing one Mk I (dunno Mk I or Mk Ia so I am not sure, but evidently at least one of them is with 2 pitch screws), as I was curious about how the CSP works in COD.

Il-2 was a serious disappointban the way it modelled CSP. Still is.. you don't seem to select RPM with it, as you should, you select "relative to maximum allowed rpm for given boost".

Speaking of which, "Mk Ia" is also a bit weird. AFAIK there was no such actual designation, it was Mk I. Mk IA is an ex post facto "designation", maybe born in post-war literature, like "Erla G-10". Hell some books even state the "Mk. I" was with four guns only..

[b101uk]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The thing about rpm is odd though. I believe you have to fly 3000/+12 to get max speed, less rpm should yield less power..

max RPM would have more power but less torque, a slightly lower RPM e.g. 2600 to 2800 rpm would have less power but more torque.

Engines are at there happiest when ran ~2/3rd & 4/5th of the way between peak torque RPM and rated power RPM, so for the sake of maths lets say rated power is 3000rpm and peak torque is 2000 rpm then 2/3rd would be 2666rpm and 4/5th would be 2800rpm, as this is ware you get a good balance of actual torque and notional power.

You did now that power is a notional figure derived from force vs. speed so e.g. 1HP = 550lbft/sec or 33000lbft/min or anything that amount to the same, so both 1lb @ 550ft/sec & 550lb @ 1ft/sec are equal to 1HP.

[fruitbat]

disagree with the mkII and mkI being the same performance.

mkI is marginally faster down low, mkII quicker up high, and more importantly, a higher service ceiling, which put them 3000ft above the 109's, at least according to one German fighter pilots book i've read (Spitfire on my tail). In October he described it 'as regular as the German railway' for spits to be waiting for them well above there service ceiling.

figures i have list service ceiling for mkII as 37,600ft (P7280), vs 34,700ft for mkI (N3171), figures i have for E3 34,550ft.

Thats why it makes much more sense to me to have one spit MkI at 9lbs, one at 12lbs and the spit MkII at 12lbs, along with an E1 and E4 of course. Then we can actually start having a Battle of Britain.

agree re the mkIa thing, its just plain weird!

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by reflected

I dare anyone to fly the Spit MK2 faster than that. It's supposed to make 350mph, but no matter how I adjust my prop, it jsut wouldn't go faster. The max speed I can reach in the MKI is about 250. What am I doing wrong? Full real except for temp.effects.

I know, it was at sea level

Heh, sorry, but I had to smile about that for a long time
Being a test pilot is not just "fly around somehow" and then bash the developers. You also have to get your physics right. You have to be the absolute master over your machine (and I seriously doubt anyone has already mastered CEM to the full extent) - and you have to be able to set reproduce-able conditions.

Well, the third point is not even conceivable right now from what I read here, but the first two... Guys, I'd respectfully suggest doing a lot more "flight schooling" before you jump to conclusions like "Plane XX is woefully undermodelled" or "They've got to get their flight models right". No, it's the other way round - people got to get their test flights right, judging from what has been written here.
I hope the devs don't jump to overly nervous conclusions... but, seeing they are all battle-hardened veterans with own flight experience, I shouldn't be too scared, I hope

P.S.: Oh, and as always on the internet: Screenshot or it didn't happen! ^-^

[reflected]

Originally Posted by Redroach

Heh, sorry, but I hat do smile about that for a long time
Being a test pilot is not just "fly around somehow" and then bash the developers. You also have to get your physics right. You have to be the absolute master over your machine (and I seriously doubt anyone has already mastered CEM to the full extent) - and you have to be able to set reproduce-able conditions.

Well, the third point is not even conceivable right now from what I read here, but the first two... Guys, I'd respectfully suggest doing a lot more "flight schooling" before you jump to conclusions like "Plane XX is woefully undermodelled" or "They've got to get their flight models right". No, it's the other way round - people got to get their test flights right, judging from what has been written here.
I hope the devs don't jump to overly nervous conclusions... but, seeing they are all battle-hardened veterans with own flight experience, I shouldn't be too scared, I hope

OK master test pilot, go ahead and fly it at 350 mph level!

[Kwiatek]

The most common Spitfire MK1-MK2 version should be:

Spit MK1 Merlin III ( pre BOB version) - 2 stage DH prop pitch, +6 1/2 lbs (87 octan fuel), no armoured windshield and no pilos armour ( the fastest SPit Mk1 at FTH but worse climb rate )

Spit MK1 Merlin III ( BOB version -could be MK1A) - CSP DH , +12 lbs ( 100 Octan), armoured windshield ( the fastest Spit MK1 at low level, good climb rate)

Spit MK2 Merlin XII - CSP Rotol, +12 lbs ( 100 Octan), armoured windshield and pilot armour)



Similar should be with Hurricanes:

Hurricane MK1 ( early) - 2 stage DH prop, +6 1/2 lbs ( 87 octan fuel)

Hurricane MK1 ( late) - CSP DH2, +12 lbs ( 100 Octan), armoured windshield ( pilot armour)