Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The V15a figures depicted in the William's graph are showing the aircraft down on power. As per the report the aircraft engine was down on power (by 45 PS), and the results were corrected to the nominal engine outputs. With the corrected output, speeds were 498 km/h (309 mph) on the deck and 574 km/h at 4800 m (356 mph at 15750 feet). See:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

6 1/2 lbs at 3000 rpm was 5 minute power, not 30 min on the Spitfire. 6 1/2 at 3000 lbs was a "climb" power but only with the rpm reduced to 2800.

This one is more realistics, with some of the 'accidentally omitted' added. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1336899153

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Unfortunately yes - only sea level result:


Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!

No emergency take off power +12 lbs included.


So actually with present FM and performacne of planes there is no sense to flying Hurricane MK1 and Spitfire MK1 against 109 casue their performacne is way off comparing to RL data even for only 87 octan fuel not mention absense of 100 Octan fuel performacne.

Could you please add above data to appropriate bugtracker issues.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Ataros

Could you please add above data to appropriate bugtracker issues.

If you could do it casue im not familiar with bugracker too much

[palker4]

You people should finally learn that Kurfürst is always right and 109 is best and it is properly represented in the game while spitfire is also properly represented because it performs worse than 109.
I just wonder what would happen if 109 would perform worse than spitfire.

[JG52Krupi]

Every book/article I have read points towards the 109 being slightly faster and better at diving and the spit being a slightly better turner.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

The smell of hypocrisy

Every book/article I have read points towards the 109 being slightly faster and better at diving and the spit being a slightly better turner.

Dont belive everything you read in books

I belive more in real life test data then story in books

[SEE]

Spent most of my time with Alpha issues rather than FM. I can usually out turn any 109 but last night (in the Spit2a) a pair of 109's matched my turns and found my self on the edge. May be its a problem with the revised throttle management and speed. Not sure yet so will try the 1a in case this is specific to the Spit 2a. Trim is better, Mk1's altitude speed better - throttle is porked, and landing friction is on par with Ice even on a 85mph verge of stalling touch down. Whatever, still my preferred choice and just have to get used to any 'quirks'.

[SEE]

Just read your post Blackdog, I stick to high alt but it's very quiet except for the occaisional 109 and usually they are pretty damned good. I think Krupi followed me down in his 109 as I was RTB to Hawkinge (in a 1a) and it performed pretty well at low alt but for me, low alt furballs are the quickest way to gain altitude - to a vacant cloud and a golden Harp lol! Game Performance is so much better at altitude as well.....